PDA

View Full Version : "Dueling with DRAGON: RED's 6K Sensor Takes on Older MX in This EPIC Camera Shootout"



JeanChristophe Dupasquier
07-30-2014, 12:17 PM
Someone at No Film School has been reading reduser.net as it seems :)

For pixel peepers and everybody else:
http://nofilmschool.com/2014/07/red-epic-dragon-vs-mx-sensor-raw-camera-shootout/

Dynamic Range and Rolloff, also compared to the Arri Alexa:

https://vimeo.com/99241145

Filters, IR and color shift:

https://vimeo.com/100002287

Color science, skintones, contrast ratios, low light, (red) noise, compression:

https://vimeo.com/100597823

Nick Morrison
07-30-2014, 04:09 PM
New OLPF? Or OLD?

Anthony Berenato Jr
07-30-2014, 04:14 PM
The article states New OLPF.

Really surprised with the underexposure test. Something doesn't seem right.

Martin Stevens
07-30-2014, 04:45 PM
I think some of these are old tests... or all of them.

Isaac Marchionna
07-30-2014, 04:49 PM
Tests were done in June. I was there for this, this was my dragon.

Mike P.
07-30-2014, 05:41 PM
14 is the new 16, I guess... This is very similar (the same) to my initial results with the new OLPF back in Feb.

I'd be very curious to see how MX would do with a DEB-equivalent helping to clean up the (more useable) blacks... Maybe get an extra stop of highlight protection with similar noise/useable shadows?

Matt Ryan
07-30-2014, 05:48 PM
The article states New OLPF.

Really surprised with the underexposure test. Something doesn't seem right.

It's right. Dragon with new olpf is not as great in lowlight as the old olpf. That's why a lot of us have been asking for an olpf that splits the difference.

Jake Wilganowski
07-30-2014, 06:33 PM
I had a Dragon shoot recently for a spot involving some green screen and practical rain and vfx, shot 250 inside and outside. The problems occur when not shooting for the sensors strong points. I have to say it is so weird now switching to raw view and seeing 800. That takes some getting used to. But at 250 Dragon is super clean, even inside.

Alan Gordon
07-30-2014, 06:40 PM
I don't know about you guys, but the blacks seemed clipped in the dragon under exposure test. Like the shadow control was being manipulated.

Jacobo Martinez
07-30-2014, 06:50 PM
I am sure this test has been done properly and there is no manipulation at all.

Charles Bergquist
07-30-2014, 08:33 PM
Damn, this is pretty rough. I think a lot of the misinformation about Dragon comes from the initial specs given and even the test films first launched with the camera ( Old OLPF ). It's simply a totally different camera on both those terms, especially seen in these tests. That dynamic range test doesn't lie though, hard to see 16.5 stops in that, or am I reading it wrong?

Sulekh Suman
07-30-2014, 10:37 PM
The dynamic range test comparing Alexa with Dragon illustrated the gains in highlight performance but the shadows seemed drastically lacking(on the new OLPF).
Pluses when compared to MX sensor
14 stops of dynamic range(across several different tests now with OLD/NEW OLPF, FIRMWARE, Color Science),
Better color/ skin tones,
Higher resolution
Minuses when compared to MX sensor
limited sensitivity
higher data rates

Álex Montoya
07-31-2014, 01:51 AM
The thing is, in this test, when comparing Dragon with the MX, there doesn't seem to be two more stops of latitude. It looks as they have taken two stops from the shadows and put them in the highlights.

In fact in looks like the Dragon has one more stop in the highlights and two less in the shadows.

There has to be something off in this test, because that's simply not what their latitude graph shows or what you see here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/14457270568/in/photostream/

Daniel Stilling
07-31-2014, 02:15 AM
What I don't understand are these low light tests, where they compose the frame, light it, expose it right, then go on to add ND's and push it in post. Who does that in real life?
What I want to see is a frame with real ratios: Skintone exposed right, some highlights in the background, but also dark areas. Jus a contrasty scene with a lot of ratio. I want to see the noise there. Rated at 800 for accurate exposure on the skin tones, and see how the rest of the frame fares. No pushing in post to get back to a "normal" exposure...

David Litchfield
07-31-2014, 03:32 AM
Cue the usual voices telling us he has exposed everything wrong :)

Anthony Berenato Jr
07-31-2014, 07:13 AM
It's right. Dragon with new olpf is not as great in lowlight as the old olpf. That's why a lot of us have been asking for an olpf that splits the difference.

Definitely understand, but I'm still most surprised at how crushed the blacks are in the Dragon underexposure test. I was really expecting to see a milky image with a lot of noise, not a very contrasty image with no shadow detail other than pure black at a stop and 2/3rds under.

I'll have to see if they uploaded R3Ds when I get home. I've seen underexposed New OLPF Dragon images on REDUser that were almost three stops under and the shadows didn't flatten this bad when the image was brought up (granted the extreme shadow detail is many more stops under in these examples)

If the difference between usable shadows in MX and Dragon reacts this differently, I'd expect the Dragon OLPF to have a coating you can barely see through. Something still feels off here, but I don't own a Dragon and I haven't had the experience of learning how it reacts to light.

Really sorry if I come off like a jerk! Just rather interested in what the OLPF is doing with the light here for future knowledge.

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 08:25 AM
The compression test was bogus. First, he says that he's fine with ISO 800 and OK with ISO 1600, but would not use ISO 3200 unless somebody held a gun to his head. He then shoots the compression test at ISO 3200 which creates all sorts of noise (no surprise). The then judges that 12:1 compresses noise in a bad way and that 18:1 compresses noise in an unacceptable way. A better test would have compressed either ISO 800 or ISO 1600. If *those* compressed unacceptably, fine. But if the lower noise resulted in low enough compression artifacts then he could have reported "honestly, 12:1 is perfectly usable on DRAGON" or even "18:1 is perfectly useable on DRAGON". Mark Toia's results certainly show that 12:1 and even 17:1 can be pretty amazing. Intentionally breaking the image quality and then making a recommendation that *compression* is to blame for unacceptable quality is bad science.

Another problem I have with these tests is that he compares DRAGON to EPIC at 1:1 pixel resolution, which basically negates the 6K vs. 5K advantage. To truly evaluate these cameras--including noise--everything should be finished at 4K. If that results in lots of noise being pushed down below perceptible levels, isn't that the point? There *are* tradeoffs making the photosites of the 6K DRAGON smaller than the photosites of the 5K EPIC. Comparing them at 1:1 instead of 4K kinda defeats the whole concept of "Shoot at >4K to finish at 4K".

I was also confused about the initial exposure test of the Sekonic chart. Were these truly shot at REDLogFilm? Or were they shot at RG4? The S-curve tells me RG4. He said they were all log, but I didn't see the evidence that he got that right.

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 08:26 AM
canīt confirm lots of stuff - in my real tests outdoors Dragon is better or at least equal with MX, i canīt confirm that MX has more in shadows, ... i surely will test again with all the new experiences of the last weeks (DEB, Black Shading)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/13929414249/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/13919107117/

Fact is, you must be careful (more careful) with Dragon and Black Shading and temperatures ...
after reading here the last 2 months, i am always surprised how good my Dragon outputs look in comparison to a lot of other footage posted here.
i would never go back to MX honestly, as said before a lot of times - colors and highlights are (for me) much more important as noise in higher ISO - as i shoot 90% of my stuff under controlled light situations...

Nick Morrison
07-31-2014, 08:56 AM
Another problem I have with these tests is that he compares DRAGON to EPIC at 1:1 pixel resolution, which basically negates the 6K vs. 5K advantage. To truly evaluate these cameras--including noise--everything should be finished at 4K.

Fair point.



I was also confused about the initial exposure test of the Sekonic chart. Were these truly shot at REDLogFilm? Or were they shot at RG4? The S-curve tells me RG4. He said they were all log, but I didn't see the evidence that he got that right.

RG4 is certainly not the same as Red Log Film, and would certainly skew results. Not sure if there's a simple way to quickly see which was used though...

Álex Montoya
07-31-2014, 09:08 AM
You can download the R3D's at the original site. I have and there certainly seems to be a couple more stops of latitude in the shadows with MX, which is then negated in the graph.

Charles Bergquist
07-31-2014, 09:40 AM
I was also confused about the initial exposure test of the Sekonic chart. Were these truly shot at REDLogFilm? Or were they shot at RG4? The S-curve tells me RG4. He said they were all log, but I didn't see the evidence that he got that right.

RG4 leaves you with something like 8 or 9 stops of DR. Unfortunately ,he did it right and that's RedLogFilm.

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 09:42 AM
RG4 leaves you with something like 8 or 9 stops of DR. Unfortunately ,he did it right and that's RedLogFilm.

Well in that case, kudos to ARRI for having such a log-like log response.

Mark Wuerthner
07-31-2014, 10:23 AM
I was also confused about the initial exposure test of the Sekonic chart. Were these truly shot at REDLogFilm? Or were they shot at RG4? The S-curve tells me RG4. He said they were all log, but I didn't see the evidence that he got that right.

Do you have any "evidence" that he got it wrong? If so, lets see it. The sekonic meter chart that this person posted matches quite well with another posting on here previously. If you look at the attachments you will see that I've drawn a straight line on both the waveform image and the sekonic meter chart (I flipped the meter chart left/right to make it easy to see.) As you can see they both flatten out at the same place. It seems to me the person mapped the log image perfectly right. Note: The black dot line on the meter chart is me mapping out points posted by John Marchand on his sekonic meter chart of the old olpf. Clearly with the new calibration dragon is mapping the exact same reflectance values at a darker spot than the old calibration. You can also see that the new calibration adds about 1 stop more highlight latitude.

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 10:40 AM
I withdraw my question about REDLogFilm...the labels clearly showed Log in the name for DRAGON and MX. I did not remember seeing the labels, only hearing the commentary. I always like to see something on the screen that reinforces what's being said. Kudos again to ARRI for having such a log-like log response--very flat over a very long range.

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 11:02 AM
i put some redlogfilm crops of my album here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123436930@N07/sets/72157646031073855/

the redlogfilm crops
https://flic.kr/p/ofWKZo
https://flic.kr/p/ofWNrN

one is ISO 1600, other ISO2000 pushed

no DEB, no ADD. Tungsten light. please notice, that the shadows are intended to be black in the final image.

as said in my thread of this i canīt post r3d because they would show too much skin ;-)

there is noise (as it is pushed without sense in this "noir situation", but actually it so much better than a lot of footage posted here in reduser. the red sparkles were discussed enough, in this case they are no issue, because you wouldnīt use this pushed blacks in a final grading and with "DEB on" they are in good hands. Dragon "grain" is very fine, will have not the red touch with DEB, Colors are stable and neutral (i am not allowed to show stuff from redcine DEB at the moment, but it is an improvement, you will see soon). Actually, i am getting a great image out of the shots, and thy look great on the 4K screen.
... i have both. One Dragon. One MX. Side by Side. Everyday. I always get the better results with Dragon, in every aspect. i am 100% neutral here. but especially the tungsten performance is a huge step. with MX i have a lot of more chroma noise and shadow-details are more muddy.
donīt know, maybe i have another sensor, ... but often i canīt confirm a lot of "tests" out there, and honestly, here at our studio, we are tired of laboratory testings ... i only believe my own tests right now ;-)
and i will upgrade the 2nd MX too. with conviction.

Kevin Marshall
07-31-2014, 11:09 AM
Another problem I have with these tests is that he compares DRAGON to EPIC at 1:1 pixel resolution, which basically negates the 6K vs. 5K advantage. To truly evaluate these cameras--including noise--everything should be finished at 4K. If that results in lots of noise being pushed down below perceptible levels, isn't that the point? There *are* tradeoffs making the photosites of the 6K DRAGON smaller than the photosites of the 5K EPIC. Comparing them at 1:1 instead of 4K kinda defeats the whole concept of "Shoot at >4K to finish at 4K".
That's only useful if you have lenses that cover 6K on the Dragon. I think 1:1 comparisons are absolutely useful, since many cinema lenses will only cover 5K-5.5K on the Dragon.

Sulekh Suman
07-31-2014, 11:15 AM
There is a reason why Arri has stayed with it's sensor for as long as it has. None of the camera companies producing 4K+ cameras(Red, Sony, Canon, Panasonic, JVC, Blackmagic, AJA, Vision Research, Kinifinity) have been able to produce a sensor capable of more dynamic range. Let's hope Red will surpass Arri's current sensor(now almost four years old) with the next iteration of Red sensor. There are still a ton of things to love Red. This forum being one of them:)
http://indiecinemaacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/30005_Sekonic-ChartDragonAlexaMX.jpg

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 11:24 AM
the Sekonic chart canīt show the usable DR and how it really look like - i am a huge fan of Arri since a long time, but honestly, in shadows, Alexa has its limits too - this whole curves and tests are nice, but letīs go to a 4K screen and compare then about the real image-impression, pushed, not pushed and so on
for me, and i compared enough, both are on the same VERY high level - but Dragon delivers more details ... and is more flexible (Copters, Gimbals) ...

Martin Stevens
07-31-2014, 11:26 AM
People seem to forget that the Alexa has perhaps the equivalent of a Low-Con Filter in the OLPF section.

So.... put a Low-Con on the Dragon and then it's even nicer..... perhaps.

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 11:33 AM
That's only useful if you have lenses that cover 6K on the Dragon. I think 1:1 comparisons are absolutely useful, since many cinema lenses will only cover 5K-5.5K on the Dragon.

Let's not forget that if you are only covering 5K on DRAGON you are not covering 5K on MX.

If one wants to peep at 1:1, that's great for intermediate commentary, but it does not lead to a sound conclusion. If the finish is to 4K, the results should be compared at 4K. If the finish is to 8K, then the results can be compared at 8K. But saying "Dragon at 6K has slightly more noise than MX at 5K" is a meaningless intermediate result.

luigivaltulini
07-31-2014, 11:47 AM
RYAN is a good test, and of course remain the test, what does that prove?
Nothing and everything.
All of us and some of us will be more favorable to the contrary, those who like and do not like.
Reality 'and now' that Dragon has the best colors in every kind of light compared to Mx and of course compared to Alexa.
You just have to relearn.
It has a great Dr, if he will have Red 'option as a low cow OLPF we would still have a better roll off, I would say "spectacular".
I very much agree with Ryan on the factor highlights, even if it were up to me I would still lose a stop below to put it on, I'd be much more comfortable, and of course 'personal but I bought Red' cause I want images such as cellulose and certainly not the by XDCAM.


Now we wait DEB and new tools OLPF so all we can set the camera as we prefer.


I tried to download the file from here they are:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0g0m2czva5yi7j/test.zip


just my thought

Brian Boyer
07-31-2014, 11:48 AM
There does seem to be something off about the shadows in this test. I base this on every other .R3D (dozens of them) from the new OLPF Dragon I've downloaded, examined, scrutinized and graded.

The results Ryan Walters got are the results he got. It's there in the files. However, I think the results are very atypical and don't seem representative of how Dragon usually behaves in the shadows.

It looks more like a worst case scenario result than what you'd normally see from the camera.

If there are other low light shots out there that look this bad from Dragon w/OLPF V2 I haven't seen them, and I make it a point to see as many as I can get my hands on.

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 11:56 AM
There does seem to be something off about the shadows in this test. I base this on every other .R3D (dozens of them) from the new OLPF Dragon I've downloaded, examined, scrutinized and graded.

The results Ryan Walters got are the results he got. It's there in the files. However, I think the results are very atypical and don't seem representative of how Dragon usually behaves in the shadows.

It looks more like a worst case scenario result than what you'd normally see from the camera.

Indeed...few people would put a black subject (TENBA bag) with a blacker logo (TENBA) in the shadows and then draw conclusions from *that*. On the other hand, it does go to show how wide-ranging 13+ stops of DR really are. To put that into context, remember when he said that sit-com key:fill lighting ratios are between 2:1 and 3:1, dramatic lighting is 4:1, and VERY dramatic lighting is 8:1? In stops, that's 1-1.5 stops, 2 stops, and 3 stops respectively. Which means that under rational conditions, a "very dramatic" scene can easily give you 13+ stops of DR on the key side and 10+ stops of DR on the fill side. Now, if you are a "no lighting" kind of indie person, where there's really 10 stops of lighting difference between key and fill, then yes, DRAGON (and most other cameras) are going to give you sub-optimal performance in your shadows. But you knew that...

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 12:49 PM
i checked the r3ds of the test - what sense is here ? - especially Dragon is underexposed from start on ... plenty much room on the histogram (redlogfilm). this are exactly the tests i am done with.

Mark Wuerthner
07-31-2014, 12:53 PM
There does seem to be something off about the shadows in this test. I base this on every other .R3D (dozens of them) from the new OLPF Dragon I've downloaded, examined, scrutinized and graded.

The results Ryan Walters got are the results he got. It's there in the files. However, I think the results are very atypical and don't seem representative of how Dragon usually behaves in the shadows.


YOu might want to look at this test. It pretty much confirms what what Ryan Walters was finding. All of which is telling me to rate the camera at 320 ISO.
http://vimeo.com/100207513

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 01:01 PM
i checked the r3ds of the test - what sense is here ? - especially Dragon is underexposed from start on ... plenty much room on the histogram (redlogfilm). this are exactly the tests i am done with.

Agreed. This chart kinda shows that:

http://indiecinemaacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/30005_Sekonic-ChartDragonAlexaMX.jpg

In this test, Alexa gets mid-tone gray (aka "0") with an output level of around 106. (It should be around 125 if dead even between 16 and 235). However, the DRAGON is exposed to give an output of only about 83. The Alexa is around -1.5 for the same output level. As others have pointed out, ISO 800 is sometimes best exposed for real at ISO 320, and this test also shows that the DRAGON was behaving like an ISO 320 camera, not an ISO 800 camera. Which begs the deeper question: what is a proper test methodology? If we know that mid-tone gray is going to be down 1.5 stops for a given ISO and shutter angle, should these be adjusted to compare like-vs-like?

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:06 PM
what it shows is the difference between the "logs" ;-)

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:13 PM
i saw real life comparison Alexa / Dragon on a 4K screen. graded stuff. honestly, it was SO hard to say what camera is left or right ... Dragon has more details actually - but DR and noise, ... maybe i need a doctor, but they are on the same level, and all other stuff is a preference of the logo on the camera ... if you canīt shoot a good movie with Alexa, Dragon, and MX ...
if you only shoot girls sitting with some charts in the hand, there might be differences, but i never will watch a movie with 90 minutes a girl sitting there with a chart in the hand. urghs.

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:17 PM
Agreed. This chart kinda shows that:

http://indiecinemaacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/30005_Sekonic-ChartDragonAlexaMX.jpg

In this test, Alexa gets mid-tone gray (aka "0") with an output level of around 106. (It should be around 125 if dead even between 16 and 235). However, the DRAGON is exposed to give an output of only about 83. The Alexa is around -1.5 for the same output level. As others have pointed out, ISO 800 is sometimes best exposed for real at ISO 320, and this test also shows that the DRAGON was behaving like an ISO 320 camera, not an ISO 800 camera. Which begs the deeper question: what is a proper test methodology? If we know that mid-tone gray is going to be down 1.5 stops for a given ISO and shutter angle, should these be adjusted to compare like-vs-like?

you are right, but i see no sense here to compare noise floors ... noone would expose a scene with camera "A" because another camera "B" has a certain"base".
if you shoot Dragon, you shoot Dragon.
if you shoot Red One with M, you will handle it different.
if you shoot with F65, you will expose it different ...

and same with the Dragon / MX comparison : 2 different tools.

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:18 PM
naked ...

heh heh
there is quite a truth in it ... in this case, noise is really not an issue

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:19 PM
but 90 minutes ... ? maybe in 3D

Michael Tiemann
07-31-2014, 01:19 PM
i saw real life comparison Alexa / Dragon on a 4K screen. graded stuff. honestly, it was SO hard to say what camera is left or right ... Dragon has more details actually - but DR and noise, ... maybe i need a doctor, but they are on the same level, and all other stuff is a preference of the logo on the camera ... if you canīt shoot a good movie with Alexa, Dragon, and MX ...
if you only shoot girls sitting with some charts in the hand, there might be differences, but i never will watch a movie with 90 minutes a girl sitting there with a chart in the hand. urghs.

You might not, but there are 2.6 million YouTube users who will...as long as the girl lightly taps her fingernails on the chart, or perhaps drums the chart lightly with her fingertips. See this article in the New York Times (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/rustle-tingle-relax-the-compelling-world-of-a-s-m-r/) for more info.

I am sure that the Next Big Thing on YouTube will be the gentle crinkling of black CineFoil, which is why we are all obsessing so much about the DR of DRAGON in the shadows. Right? ;-)

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 01:25 PM
You might not, but there are 2.6 million YouTube users who will...as long as the girl lightly taps her fingernails on the chart, or perhaps drums the chart lightly with her fingertips. See this article in the New York Times (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/rustle-tingle-relax-the-compelling-world-of-a-s-m-r/) for more info.

I am sure that the Next Big Thing on YouTube will be the gentle crinkling of black CineFoil, which is why we are all obsessing so much about the DR of DRAGON in the shadows. Right? ;-)

hahaha

if i am at THIS point of state of mind - watching this movies, i will go back shooting hvx200 with ND 2.4

shashbugu
07-31-2014, 01:35 PM
i saw real life comparison Alexa / Dragon on a 4K screen. graded stuff. honestly, it was SO hard to say what camera is left or right ... Dragon has more details actually - but DR and noise, ... maybe i need a doctor, but they are on the same level, and all other stuff is a preference of the logo on the camera ... if you canīt shoot a good movie with Alexa, Dragon, and MX ...
if you only shoot girls sitting with some charts in the hand, there might be differences, but i never will watch a movie with 90 minutes a girl sitting there with a chart in the hand. urghs.

+1 I agree. We spend too much time talking about DR these days. That said for filming the Dragon is an awesome camera.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
07-31-2014, 01:53 PM
Personally I agree, from what I see, you can get GREAT results from the Alexa or Dragon. However, I would appreciate it if Red tones down some of their marketing hype. We've got a Sony F5 and a Scarlet, and comparing the DR on both, I was quite disappointed with the Scarlet. I still love it, it's a good camera; but I think at this level its ethical to tell customers exactly what they are about to purchase. The funny thing is, we just paid for the Scarlet to Epic Dragon upgrade and bypassed the F55. So Red is doing a lot right. I would just really appreciate a more exact advertised spec. No hocus pocus, just "this is what it does."

At the end of the day, lets all remember, for those of us who have to buy our cameras, that Alexa costs almost 4 times the price of the Red. So I am a bit sympathetic (but still slightly angry) with Red's plight - its either they make a bit more noise or get mulled by Arri. Also while I think the Arris do a good job, in the 21st century, I do think their prices are a bit exploitative. That's just my humble opinion.

Marcos Montenegro
07-31-2014, 02:40 PM
The question for me is if you're perfectly happy with the images you're getting with MX does it really make sense to spend $9.5K for Dragon? No doubt it's the better sensor, produces better color renditions, better skin tone, better DR, better highlights, etc, but it does have it's critics, mainly in the low light performance category ("2000 ISO is the new 800" thing). After all, if you can't shoot with an Epic or a Scarlet, then you shouldn't be doing this.

Currently, ADD and DEB are Dragon-exclusive REDCINE-X post tools, but in the case of DEB, I wonder if can be tweaked to work with MX generated files? Me thinks probably not.

Brian Boyer
07-31-2014, 02:45 PM
YOu might want to look at this test. It pretty much confirms what what Ryan Walters was finding. All of which is telling me to rate the camera at 320 ISO.http://vimeo.com/100207513

I've looked at that test and looked at the .R3Ds. It's noisy but it's not noisy in the same funky way as the Ryan Walters test.

If you haven't already, download the .R3Ds from part 1 of Ryan's test and look at the image that's two stops underexposed. It's the one that's labeled T4 for the aperture with a filtration of 1.5 + 6. Kick the ISO up to 3200 in Redcine-X (don't use Resolve) so you can see what's happening.

In Redcine-X, a Denoise value of 2 or 3 does a pretty good job of clearing up the most egregious red speckles on most OLPF V2 Dragon images.

When you apply a value of 2 to this image it does something really strange to the entire image. It goes very green. It eliminates ALL the red in the shadows and on the back wall - not just the red speckles.

Not only that, watch what happens to the shadow around the collar and on the left arm when you move the Denoise slider from 0 to 2. It's like a stop or more difference in brightness between the two. The only "detail" in that area is coming from the red speckles. Eliminate those and all you're left with is a crunchy, black mess.

I've never seen Dragon do this in any other .R3D, including the ones associated with the link you provided, even with daylight balanced sources. If you have I'd like to see it.

Gavin Greenwalt discussed this with Ryan and they speculate it may have to do with the daylight balanced lights Ryan used not having enough red content.

Whatever the cause, this is not typical behavior for the Dragon sensor, no matter how much noise is present. This is why I say it's more of a worst case scenario than what you'd expect to see in the majority of shooting situations and should therefore be taken with a grain of salt.


As for shooting at 320, check out this series of images Brian Merlen was kind enough to share (be sure to not post them, per his request). They were all shot at ISO500 at 12:1 or 16:1 compression under HMIs. The shadow areas range from completely acceptable under the circumstances to nice and clean.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?119669-SHUT-UP-AND-SHOOT-THAT-DRAGON

Based on Ryan Walters' test, you'd expect a lot worse performance from Dragon.


EDIT: Also, take a look at this: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?119231-Stops-lost-in-the-darks&p=1391307&viewfull=1#post1391307

Ryan's test results seem anomalous to me.

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 02:47 PM
DEB + ADD is unbeatable - this images are superior to all stuff i have seen before (but it takes its time and it is only for Dragon). MX is great camera, tons of great footage out there, yes. But my personal opinion is, that you achieve great results easier with Dragon, because more DR, better colors, very simple. Tungsten perfomance: better. Dragon makes things easier - with MX you needed much more control with the highlights. saying this all please notice - i have no issues with noise or better said: itīs nothing for me i am worried about with Dragon. I know some see this different ;-)

Jan Reiff
07-31-2014, 02:51 PM
Brian is right here - the R3Dīs of the Ryan Test are too noisy. Period. This images are not presenting the Dragon Sensor. I did a lot of tungsten "noir" shots last days and they are so much cleaner ...

Isaac Marchionna
07-31-2014, 03:28 PM
I've seen another local Dragon's footage and it still displayed the same level of footage as mine. That or mine is just broken. /shrugs

Charles Bergquist
07-31-2014, 04:18 PM
Either this is representative of every Dragon, or the Dragon sensors have a wide quality control tolerance.

Generally speaking, it seems like some people are happy with their Dragon and some are really struggling with it. Could it be that the Dragon sensors are just all totally different? Could it be the OLPFs are all different? I've usually stayed relatively quiet on the forums with my Epic, because it worked excellently, I knew the limits and it was great. With Dragon it seems like everyone is working against some image quality issue or their camera is fine and they love it.

Putting it bluntly, I thought I was buying a camera with a relatively clean 2000 ISO with 16.5 stops of dynamic range and it's apparent that's not what I was sold.

That said, I'm not even that concerned about the red speck noise, they totally eliminated that nasty chunky blue channel noise from the Epic, which is great. Dragon still isn't 2000 as 800.

The one test this didn't do was the Magenta Flare test, which I really wish it did. That has seriously changed the way I shoot backlit scenes.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
07-31-2014, 04:33 PM
"Putting it bluntly, I thought I was buying a camera with a relatively clean 2000 ISO with 16.5 stops of dynamic range and it's apparent that's not what I was sold."

Very good point.
I don't think anyone here wants to give their Dragon back, it would just be nice to have a more realistic spec from the manufacturer.
I think the advertised specs actually hurts Red more than it helps them. We don't buy these without testing and feedback from other colleagues. And the camera's capabilities become clear eventually.
We all agree they are good cams. However, if you are shooting nights scenes with very little light, and are pushed on budget/time, its good to know what you are actually dealing with. Most people here know what it is like to be hired for a shoot without any time to test - these things do happen.
I am a bit surprised that Red (who usually have excellent customer service) continue to push some of these specs that don't seem true. This is even more damaging to their reputation.



I have heard repeatedly that you either have to go with DR or Resolution. Has the science changed? Does anyone here know if Red have actually made a REAL breakthrough, or they are just balancing things differently?

Gunleik Groven
07-31-2014, 04:44 PM
Well... If the truth is Alexa DR with 4x the resolution, that is a breakthrough.

Warning: Matter of taste statement, but:
As is the implied statement of his Alexa tests (and in sync with y opinion) the Alexa oversells the darks a bit. Looking better in the monitor when you shoot, than when you come home. Darks are a bit too bright.
Matter-oftaste-warning hereby off.

The big seller for me, also vs the Alexa, is color.
Color and practical richness in the images.

I wouldn't shoot new olpf at 3200/18:1 for practical use, though. I'd rather lower the resolution to 5k and lower the compression...

The new OLPF changed moved the DR upwards. I and a few others are happy with that. The obvious tradeoff is that you have less under.

As to MX vs Dragon NEW. I dunno. Haven't tested.
main point is that they are different cams and should be lit/shot differently.
To me the colors, richness and ability to handle "odd" light sources well has been the convincing point. Allways has been. still is.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
07-31-2014, 05:03 PM
'Alexa oversells the darks a bit. Looking better in the monitor when you shoot, than when you come home. Darks are a bit too bright.'

A very good point. I have noticed that the darks are a bit too bright.

Matt Ryan
07-31-2014, 05:08 PM
'Alexa oversells the darks a bit. Looking better in the monitor when you shoot, than when you come home. Darks are a bit too bright.'

A very good point. I have noticed that the darks are a bit too bright.

You can always bring them down though... I'd rather have that than a "darker" low end that can't be brought up.

Alan Gordon
07-31-2014, 05:10 PM
I'll agree with everything you said Gunleik.

But I'll also agree that Red needs to cut the crap on 16+ stops of DR. Sure you can get into matter of taste nonsense, but I think most people can agree there's a lot closer to 14 stops flat. Anything more than that is gravy for smooth roll offs. Which is still great.

Unless Graeme comes up with some new algorithm to get more out of the sensor, Red needs to change their marketing material to 14 stops. It's misinformation.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
07-31-2014, 05:14 PM
I'll agree with everything you said Gunleik.

But I'll also agree that Red needs to cut the crap on 16+ stops of DR. Sure you can get into matter of taste nonsense, but I think most people can agree there's a lot closer to 14 stops flat. Anything more than that is gravy for smooth roll offs. Which is still great.

Unless Graeme comes up with some new algorithm to get more out of the sensor, Red needs to change their marketing material to 14 stops. It's misinformation.



Alan, you are 100% right. And it does them no favours.

Shawn Nelson
07-31-2014, 05:29 PM
Personally I want clean iso2000 on the new OLPF, which is what I thought I was getting. Hopefully the new build will bring that.

RivaiC
07-31-2014, 09:38 PM
Speculation, well it could be the prototype sensor and the mass production sensor differs in performance.

I have ask this question since RED MX vs EPIC MX days (why EPIC is more noisy) but dead silence. So i dont expect this to have any clear answer as well.

R

Max M.
08-01-2014, 12:58 AM
Personally I want clean iso2000 on the new OLPF, which is what I thought I was getting. Hopefully the new build will bring that.

This and more DR where the reason i upgraded. 6k instead of 5k, don't care. The 2 main selling points turn out to be alot less then promised. And phil, jim said it the past iso 2000 would look as clean as iso800 on mx... It has been said by red. Lets hope new firmware and an updated olpf will solve the problem.

Jan Reiff
08-01-2014, 01:55 AM
This and more DR where the reason i upgraded. 6k instead of 5k, don't care. The 2 main selling points turn out to be alot less then promised. And phil, jim said it the past iso 2000 would look as clean as iso800 on mx... It has been said by red. Lets hope new firmware and an updated olpf will solve the problem.

maybe this were the main selling points, but this are not the main real life points - DR is very good, itīs all about what is usable for you, some accept more clipping, some bit more grain - taste. ISO2000 is not (my) real world shooting. but colors, the dense and overall emotion of an image, that is the main point. not one single aspect, the whole image impression is at the end what you see. and here, i can say (for me) - i am really happy with the dragon - i like it much more than MX (so, MX is still a great camera with great results).

tobyheslop
08-01-2014, 02:04 AM
If anyone was able to download the Sekonic profiles for Dragon, can you please share download links on Reduser

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 02:12 AM
I've seen another local Dragon's footage and it still displayed the same level of footage as mine. That or mine is just broken. /shrugs

Isaac, are you saying that your camera (and the other one you mention) always goes green in underexposure under daylight sources like they did in Ryan's test?

Of all the .R3Ds I've looked at from the new OLPF Dragon, and as freely and willingly as people complain about the camera on this forum, I haven't seen it or know of any complaints about that.

If Ryan's MacTech LEDs are causing the anomaly (as he suspects) then perhaps the next thing to do is test Dragon under a variety of daylight sources (or, at the very least, one more) to see how widespread the problem is or if it's isolated to that particular model or brand.

I can see how it would be easy to assume this is Dragon's normal behavior when MX didn't exhibit these problems under the same conditions. But, given that I can't find one other example of Dragon behaving like this, it makes me question when and how often a person might realistically encounter these same results.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
08-01-2014, 02:12 AM
maybe this were the main selling points, but this are not the main real life points - DR is very good, itīs all about what is usable for you, some accept more clipping, some bit more grain - taste. ISO2000 is not (my) real world shooting. but colors, the dense and overall emotion of an image, that is the main point. not one single aspect, the whole image impression is at the end what you see. and here, i can say (for me) - i am really happy with the dragon - i like it much more than MX (so, MX is still a great camera with great results).

All what you have said is true Jan, but we would just really like to have a spec description true to the cameras capabilities... that's all.

At the end of the day, if you go into the supermarket to buy a tin of baked beans, but find out that the tin is half full when you get home, you will be pissed won't you?

luigivaltulini
08-01-2014, 02:23 AM
If anyone was able to download the Sekonic profiles for Dragon, can you please share download links on Reduser

in the previous post I put the link, here be the test of Ryan including profiles SEKONIC.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0g0m2czva5yi7j/test.zip

Sergio Perez
08-01-2014, 02:23 AM
Gunleik, I am at this very dilema... I got the email to upgrade, have finally got my financing ready, and all this OLPF debacle broke off. I remember yours, Peter Callister ASC and other's Dragon tests with the old OLPF and it was all great. I have the Epic MX, haven't installed the flare guard which was a big issue to some Epic users... My question is what should I do? Low light for me is REALLY IMPORTANT. I shoot motorsports- https://vimeo.com/80187608- and use fast shutter, slow motion and ISO up to 1280 a lot. Also I shoot a lot of night, natural light documentary material,https://vimeo.com/38020250 its what I like to do and part of my "artistic" work. I was seeing my Dragon upgrade as finally being able to achieve the DSMC concept and usage in my projects. I am not much of a "studio" shooter... What are really the main issues of the old OLPF? Is it a deal breaker, a step back vs old MX? I just don't know what to right now. Funds pending...Motorsports pays my bills, Low light natural shooting is what I love to do. This test made me really worry if this is a step back to my type of work...Help! I just need some clear information basience! What can I expect From OLD OLPF in Real world shooting vs the NEW vs MX? This test made me feel that for my type of shooting MX is actually better than Dragon New OLPF. What about OLD OLPF? Anyone with an OLD and NEW that can share in a real world, natural light situation? All this will obviously be a thing of the past in the near future with the swappable OLPF. However, my concern is really about what should I do now with my order!

EDIT- I know I've posted this somewhere else, its the last time I'm going to ask this, but, really, I need your help in this. the upgrade plus rocket X is no spare change, and having major motorsports events that are my bread and butter coming in the next 3 months, I can't afford to lose this job ! :)

David Litchfield
08-01-2014, 02:25 AM
Does nobody remember the original Stouffer chart Red showed with 18 stops? And saying it killed HDRX? Everyone was happy to talk about DR then. This cannot be the same sensor.

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 02:31 AM
Does nobody remember the original Stouffer chart Red showed with 18 stops? And saying it killed HDRX? Everyone was happy to talk about DR then. This cannot be the same sensor.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?117540-Dragon-Dynamic-Range-Test-21-stop-chart

Jan Reiff
08-01-2014, 03:09 AM
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?117540-Dragon-Dynamic-Range-Test-21-stop-chart

but they never said this will be in the final camera i remember ...

Mark Pugh
08-01-2014, 03:47 AM
Sergio I've been shooting with the OLD OLPF since December.
I was going to change to the new one, but then news about the one stop light loss broke.
I can tell you I haven't had one shot where skin tone was a problem. If there was sensor/olpf flaring from the sun, it only added character to the shot, if anything.
From what I've seen, any general improvement to colors from the New OLPF is very,very subtle.
However, losing a stop of light (New OLPF) would have been a serious issue on many occasions, resulting in poor shadows, or time and money on set to increase the light. Maybe not an issue for day exteriors, but in a studio, shooting high frame rates, pulling keys, that might be a bad situation for the new OLPF. There's no way that I'd swap my OLD for a new OLPF right now.
Everyone seemed incredibly happy with the old OLPF, until Red offered something else.
If I were you, I'd get the OLD OLPF installed for now, despite all the advice i hear on Reduser to the contrary.

David Litchfield
08-01-2014, 03:59 AM
but they never said this will be in the final camera i remember ...

Then why show it? Other than hype and to get people's money.

Jan Reiff
08-01-2014, 04:19 AM
there is no business like ...

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 04:46 AM
but they never said this will be in the final camera i remember ...


Then why show it? Other than hype and to get people's money.

That chart IS the currently shipping Dragon. This is not the original chart RED showed. My point is David said it can't be the same sensor because that original chart showed 18 stops. I was showing that it looks to be the same sensor to me, based on what Gavin and Stacey found.

RED claims 16.5 stops of DR and every DR wedge test chart I've seen supports that claim. The problem seems to be some people stop counting stops as soon as they see the slightest bit of noise when, to my understanding, that's not how it works. You count as many discernible wedges you can before they're indistinguishable from the noise floor.

Just because someone doesn't feel comfortable using the noisier stops doesn't mean they don't exist.

It seems to stack up like this in practical use with the OLPF V2 (per individual tastes):

If you don't have access to enough lights and you're sensitive to noise in your images, Dragon has about 13-14 stops of DR.

If you don't mind a little texture in your images, Dragon has 14-15 stops of DR.

If you're able and inclined to employ NR, Dragon has 15-16 stops of DR.

Sergio Perez
08-01-2014, 06:25 AM
Thanks Mark, really appreciated the feedback! Great help!

Joel Arvidsson
08-01-2014, 07:26 AM
Does nobody remember the original Stouffer chart Red showed with 18 stops? And saying it killed HDRX? Everyone was happy to talk about DR then. This cannot be the same sensor.

I think this was from the sensor outside of the camera body and that you lose a little perfomance when squeezing eveything in a small box as an epic body.

David Litchfield
08-01-2014, 07:58 AM
I think this was from the sensor outside of the camera body and that you lose a little perfomance when squeezing eveything in a small box as an epic body.

In which case I guess the next upgrade will be a larger body with better cooling and more outputs, with the added benefit of seeing those 18 stops.

Isaac Marchionna
08-01-2014, 08:15 AM
Isaac, are you saying that your camera (and the other one you mention) always goes green in underexposure under daylight sources like they did in Ryan's test?

Yes. So far that's what I've seen. I think the green was due to the lights in regards to this test. I don't think it's my camera specifically. If it is then yay for red quality control. If red thinks this test indicates my camera is faulty I welcome them to email me and get it back for servicing.

I love the image off this camera, but I'll be honest I was sold into it by the new ISO, all the early test footage, etc, and that's not what I got. So far this camera isn't flying off the shelf for rentals, and I have regretted that I jumped from mx so quickly. I don't hate the purchase. It's just not the camera I was sold into originally.

NOSA OBAYIUWANA
08-01-2014, 08:18 AM
.... therein lies the point. Red should deliver what it says on the tin. And the argument about "usable" DR just isn't justifiable. IMHO.

Daniel Stilling
08-01-2014, 08:52 AM
On this one RED definitely went way too far on the hype. I'm sure it's frustrating for them as well. I'm sure the intentions were there to squeeze all they could out of the Dragon, and were really working in the direction of wowing people with 18 stops. Overdeliver. But as the process went by they probably figured out that it couldn't happen and had to trim somewhere, and the lowlight capability ended up being what suffered. I think the swappable OLPF is the best that can be done at this point. But I wish they would fix the specs that will show what is in reality being delivered...

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 08:57 AM
Yes. So far that's what I've seen. I think the green was due to the lights in regards to this test. I don't think it's my camera specifically.

I'm sorry. I'm a little confused by your answer. You start off answering my question about it always going green with, "Yes. So far that's what I've seen."

Then you state the green is due to the lights, which seems to contradict your first statement about it always going green. So, I'm not sure what's always the case and what was an isolated occurrence due to the lights.

Gunleik Groven
08-01-2014, 08:58 AM
sergio, if lowlight is the most important, go old.

Isaac Marchionna
08-01-2014, 09:05 AM
I'm sorry. I'm a little confused by your answer. You start off answering my question about it always going green with, "Yes. So far that's what I've seen."

Then you state the green is due to the lights, which seems to contradict your first statement about it always going green. So, I'm not sure what's always the case and what was an isolated occurrence due to the lights.

I've seen dragons going green in these lighting conditions as well. However my dragon responds to natural low light the same as the others I've played with/shot with, which in those situations DOESN'T have green in the shadows.

This camera came back from RED having passed it's quality control checks, when I got it there was dust under the OLPF, it again went back and had a replacement OLPF (no dust this second time) and passed it's QC checks. If you're implying it's a funky camera, just say so. But nothing in my experience with Dragon's indicates this camera is outside of the make/model's operating range.

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 09:33 AM
If you're implying it's a funky camera, just say so. But nothing in my experience with Dragon's indicates this camera is outside of the make/model's operating range.

Relax. I'm not implying anything about your camera. I'm not qualified to diagnose it nor do I own a Dragon, which is why I'm asking you what you normally experience because this test was the first time I had seen this behavior to such an extreme.

If you re-read the post of mine you originally responded to, you'd see that I was questioning whether the green underexposure happened with other daylight balanced lights or if it was specific to these particular ones (you cut that part out of the quote).

I said it seemed to be a worst case scenario and not representative of what people would usually encounter but I never indicated I thought something was wrong with your camera.

Isaac Marchionna
08-01-2014, 09:40 AM
Brian, totally understand. I came into this test open minded, as I had shot some with the Dragon before, enough to start to form my own opinions, but hadn't done so in a controlled environment.

I think dragon responded to these lights in that green cast, which matches up with some other footage I've seen where I wasn't privy to the lighting setup personally. I think most of this test is worst case scenario, and again the Dragon looks lovely when exposed properly (as we should all strive for), the issue becomes how the darks really haven't improved over MX, which I was frankly surprised by personally. I was there for all the tests short of the MX ND tests, because I had to rush home for a camera prep the next day. But I trust Ryan's testing setup, as he had no axe to grind, and we all wanted the camera to make a big distinction for itself.

I think Dragon IS an improvement. It's just not as dramatic as earlier claimed.

Jan Reiff
08-01-2014, 09:56 AM
after reading all this again, i am looking forward right now for my nightshoot with Dragon in France, ... i have no headache.

Bohdan Klos
08-01-2014, 10:34 AM
sergio, if lowlight is the most important, go old.


I wouldn't go old - the color of the old OLPF is pretty much the same as MX.

He should wait it out till there is a more general purpose OLPF.... The goldilocks OLPF you could call it.


The old OLPF is too cold - the second OLPF is too hot. The third OLPF was juuuuuust right....for the widest range of shooting.

Cant wait for the goldiocks OLPF.

Gunleik Groven
08-01-2014, 10:47 AM
the colors on dragon and mx are-as stated, quite different, both with new and old olpf. and only for the better on both

Álex Montoya
08-01-2014, 10:48 AM
The introduction of interchangeable OLPF's will be interesting. I can't wait to see what third party solutions appear.

Bohdan Klos
08-01-2014, 11:01 AM
the colors on dragon and mx are-as stated, quite different, both with new and old olpf. and only for the better on both


Sorry, I re-read Jarreds post - he says there is better/vastly improved colour science between OLD OLPF and New OLPF.

However I did see some posts of colour on the old olpf that were decidely MX like - certainly I would agree with Jarred the 2nd OLPF knocks the first OLPF colour out the water. It makes choosing the first one quite difficult even if you do need the better lower end.

Brian Boyer
08-01-2014, 12:42 PM
I think Dragon IS an improvement. It's just not as dramatic as earlier claimed.

I can dig it. RED may have oversold it a tad. However, I tend to believe the dust hasn't really settled on what Dragon (the actual sensor) is or isn't quite yet, especially in light of different OLPF formulations (no pun intended).

It doesn't currently seem to be remarkably better than MX in some areas…that is, until you stress it.

I remember reading an analogy someone was using to compare CPUs. If you have a race between a single horse pulling an empty chariot and a team of 8 horses pulling an empty chariot, the single horse will win. Put two 800 lb. gorillas in each chariot and the team of horses wins handily.

Under certain lighting conditions, MX goes sickly looking. Under others, it goes clinical. Under certain others, it goes all video-y. Dragon has greatly reduced or alleviated these traits from what I've seen so far.

It's still a little early but, as the current Dragon gets used more often, I think it will produce the best looking imagery to ever come from a RED camera in the hands of the people who embrace it for what it does well…and (this is important) it will be very noticeable - more so than each seemingly minor improvement would suggest.

People may say I'm full of shit but I'm starting to see it already. As a result, I think it's eventually going to make people feel better about the upgrade and more enthusiastic about using it.

Isaac Marchionna
08-01-2014, 12:52 PM
I think the thing I'm shakey on is that since this wasn't the camera I was very much promised, and it is a work in progress, that things like the removable OLPF kit should become standard as part of the camera. Simply put, this should be a free upgrade to existing Dragon owners, especially if the solution being proposed is a modular OLPF rather than a sensor that really is 2000 ISO native.

I'm not bashing. I just can't shell out more money to fix a problem I didn't plan on having when I've already plopped down 9500. Or being turned down by producers who want to rent the camera, only to ask if I have such and such OLPFs in my kit.

Alan Gordon
08-01-2014, 08:34 PM
I'm grading some 6k Dragon footage now. SUPER heavy grade. Pushed all over the place. Qualifies galore.

Things I'm noticing:

Everything was exposed (properly with plenty of light) to ISO 400. I see no noise worth loosing sleep over at the 4k render we're doing.

Tons of color info. Good (perhaps not great) keys for qualifiers.

4k Render is tack sharp. I just wish I had a 110" 4k screen to watch on.

Super bright highlights just barely clip.

__________________

Is Dragon ISO 2000 if you want to be super clean? No. End of story.

ISO 400 looks fantastic. Perhaps too clean at times. It's perfect for beauty work with controlled lighting. 800 does seem to still be the go-to though giving you the extra reach on the top end.

Nick Morrison
08-01-2014, 08:58 PM
I'm grading some 6k Dragon footage now. SUPER heavy grade. Pushed all over the place. Qualifies galore.

Things I'm noticing:

Everything was exposed (properly with plenty of light) to ISO 400. I see no noise worth loosing sleep over at the 4k render we're doing.

Tons of color info. Good (perhaps not great) keys for qualifiers.

4k Render is tack sharp. I just wish I had a 110" 4k screen to watch on.

Super bright highlights just barely clip.

__________________

Is Dragon ISO 2000 if you want to be super clean? No. End of story.

ISO 400 looks fantastic. Perhaps too clean at times. It's perfect for beauty work with controlled lighting. 800 does seem to still be the go-to though giving you the extra reach on the top end.

Thanks for the feedback Alan. One of my friends who's been shooting new OLPF has been finding similar results, and LOVING Dragon.

Very happy to hear how flexible and accommodating Dragon is in the grade. Extremely important to me, so very happy.

best.

Jonathan Yonkers
08-02-2014, 07:27 AM
I must say that this test is quite disappointing. At some point, Red was sending huge claims. 18 stops DR, clean iso 2000, etc. After the dust went down... 14 actual stops and iso 320?
It seems that Dragon, is just shy of matching the Alexa on highlight roll off AND DR. This seems very far from what first expected from the manufactures hype, therefore disappointing. Still Dragon is great camera, insane camera, of course, just not what we all expected.

PC Greene
08-02-2014, 08:09 AM
We just sent our Epic in & after seeing Phil Hollands old vs new OLPF tests and the radical difference in flaring, decided to go with new OLPF even though most of our shooting is high frame rates in low light as well. Posts like this make me question the decision & my sanity lol. Guess I'm gonna wait for OLPF V3 & see where that leaves things. :-/


Thank you,


Sergio I've been shooting with the OLD OLPF since December.
I was going to change to the new one, but then news about the one stop light loss broke.
I can tell you I haven't had one shot where skin tone was a problem. If there was sensor/olpf flaring from the sun, it only added character to the shot, if anything.
From what I've seen, any general improvement to colors from the New OLPF is very,very subtle.
However, losing a stop of light (New OLPF) would have been a serious issue on many occasions, resulting in poor shadows, or time and money on set to increase the light. Maybe not an issue for day exteriors, but in a studio, shooting high frame rates, pulling keys, that might be a bad situation for the new OLPF. There's no way that I'd swap my OLD for a new OLPF right now.
Everyone seemed incredibly happy with the old OLPF, until Red offered something else.
If I were you, I'd get the OLD OLPF installed for now, despite all the advice i hear on Reduser to the contrary.

Jan Reiff
08-02-2014, 08:54 AM
yesterday,again Strasbourg, France ... 9pm, ... new OLF, itsī100% clean, ... when you have the redlogfilm as base, itīs like a HDR image without HDR, ... this camera is stunning ...

i will post better images and bigger and for sure some R3D later next week, ... this one here is no ADD, no DEB, ...

Álex Montoya
08-02-2014, 09:09 AM
yesterday,again Strasbourg, France ... 9pm, ... new OLF, itsī100% clean, ... when you have the redlogfilm as base, itīs like a HDR image without HDR, ... this camera is stunning ...

i will post better images and bigger and for sure some R3D later next week, ... this one here is no ADD, no DEB, ...

Nice!

Jan Reiff
08-02-2014, 09:20 AM
full frame jpg

http://we.tl/mdWh6ZyORe

Álex Montoya
08-02-2014, 10:05 AM
That's very nice. Let us play with the R3D, when you can.

Jan Reiff
08-02-2014, 10:10 AM
i will post some next week yes

Alan Gordon
08-02-2014, 10:33 AM
yesterday,again Strasbourg, France ... 9pm, ... new OLF, itsī100% clean, ... when you have the redlogfilm as base, itīs like a HDR image without HDR, ... this camera is stunning ...

i will post better images and bigger and for sure some R3D later next week, ... this one here is no ADD, no DEB, ...

Except this doesn't, at least on first glance, appear to be a particularly high dynamic range image. The values all seem relatively constrained to a couple of stops.

Jan Reiff
08-02-2014, 10:41 AM
i always have the feeling of "hdr" when watching the Raw of Dragon ... i donīt care about charts, but there IS more than MX ;-)

Timur Civan
08-02-2014, 11:30 AM
I think the new dragon OLPF light response is awesome. It lets me shoot the way i used to on 35mm. Expose for the shadows, with fill, or open up half a stop, then print down. Dont worry about the highlights, they will be there and look awesome.

RED shifted the balance of DR upwards, much more like 35mm. Dont forget how effing grainy 35 is, and the way to combat that is to add some fill, over expose a bit, the nprint down. Shoot at 800, add a bit of fill, then develop at 400/500ISO and you will be golden on New OLPF. Just like film. This is not a Documentary camera.

I was worried at first, till i started working to its strengths, and now its just unbelievable. Dont ever wanna go back.

Martin Stevens
08-02-2014, 11:50 AM
I think the new dragon OLPF light response is awesome. It lets me shoot the way i used to on 35mm. Expose for the shadows, with fill, or open up half a stop, then print down. Dont worry about the highlights, they will be there and look awesome.

RED shifted the balance of DR upwards, much more like 35mm. Dont forget how effing grainy 35 is, and the way to combat that is to add some fill, over expose a bit, the nprint down. Shoot at 800, add a bit of fill, then develop at 400/500ISO and you will be golden on New OLPF. Just like film. This is not a Documentary camera.

I was worried at first, till i started working to its strengths, and now its just unbelievable. Dont ever wanna go back.

Awesome to hear.... truly.

Avi Cohen
08-02-2014, 02:07 PM
I cannot understand all these details :(

I just need to look @ two lit scenes side by side... I am slow :(

Nick Morrison
08-02-2014, 02:34 PM
I think the new dragon OLPF light response is awesome. It lets me shoot the way i used to on 35mm. Expose for the shadows, with fill, or open up half a stop, then print down. Dont worry about the highlights, they will be there and look awesome.

RED shifted the balance of DR upwards, much more like 35mm. Dont forget how effing grainy 35 is, and the way to combat that is to add some fill, over expose a bit, the nprint down. Shoot at 800, add a bit of fill, then develop at 400/500ISO and you will be golden on New OLPF. Just like film. This is not a Documentary camera.

I was worried at first, till i started working to its strengths, and now its just unbelievable. Dont ever wanna go back.

Thanks for feedback Timur!!

best

tobyheslop
08-02-2014, 03:43 PM
Thanks Luigi for the profiles

Patrick Tresch
08-02-2014, 05:22 PM
This is not a Documentary camera.

BTW this is also a great docu cam. Why cound'nt it be? I've shot various docus with the Epic and now with the Dragon.
I'm eager to work with the modular OLPF as I'm a fan of the old OLPF.

Pat

Timur Civan
08-02-2014, 05:37 PM
BTW this is also a great docu cam. Why cound'nt it be? I've shot various docus with the Epic and now with the Dragon.
I'm eager to work with the modular OLPF as I'm a fan of the old OLPF.

Pat

I mean as a no light camera. I mean you could.....

But it's no C300 at night with a 24-105 f4.0 set it to 12,800 and rip. But then again, a c300/500 is not stellar in daylight. Not enough latitude for my taste.

Timur Civan
08-02-2014, 05:40 PM
Thanks for feedback Timur!!

best

In fact, I don't even want the old olpf back anymore. This is the first digital cam that is highlight biased. Even more than an Alexa. The Alexa is about dead even above and below. The dragon is 60/40 split highlight to shadow it feels. That said, it crunches black faster and has some grain the low end. But like I said. Fill in. Print down. Done. Keep working.

James_Mills
08-05-2014, 12:19 AM
I think the thing I'm shakey on is that since this wasn't the camera I was very much promised, and it is a work in progress, that things like the removable OLPF kit should become standard as part of the camera. Simply put, this should be a free upgrade to existing Dragon owners, especially if the solution being proposed is a modular OLPF rather than a sensor that really is 2000 ISO native.

I'm not bashing. I just can't shell out more money to fix a problem I didn't plan on having when I've already plopped down 9500. Or being turned down by producers who want to rent the camera, only to ask if I have such and such OLPFs in my kit.

As much as I'm loving my new Dragon and its beauties in exteriors, I also admit that a free upgrade does feel warranted seeing that I was also most excited about the increased low light capabilities when I committed 9,500 over a year ago. I know the option of having either is appreciated, but not so much when Jarred is admittedly stating there's some significant drawbacks to the old OLPF.

David Battistella
09-24-2014, 11:34 AM
Gentlemen,

Please be gentlemen. Please be respectful and considerate of others.

battistella

Eryc Tramonn
09-24-2014, 12:04 PM
Right, keep working, except now with half the lighting package we used to have when film was more common, and almost no ability to bring up shadows in post, as clients have now come to expect. Doesn't work for me. It's not 2002 anymore.

Interesting. I agree with both of you. So what's the middle ground? I think a lot of "DPs" don't use light meters anymore, and they really should. I agree with Timur, fill in the shadows to bring them up within a suitable contrast tolerance. Don't just go for a WYSIWYG approach by looking at the monitor. A no-budget feature I was just on kept saying, we need to do this mostly with natural light 1. Because the budget isn't there, and 2. You have a DRAGON don't you?

Geez. At one point, I had to defend the DRAGON against the A7R because the director "understands" sensor tech. Haha.

We had enough instruments on hand to add to the shadows slightly, but that wasn't done because the image appeared brooding via DRAGONcolor and REDgamma 4. Granted, we would do spot checks in RAW, but at the end of the day, these space age tools are being constructed with the legacy philosophy of film exposure at their core.

My biggest worry is that for a lack of diligence on the production's part, the camera will be blamed for noisy blacks after the fact. It's a slippery slope we're on.

Robert Ruffo New
09-24-2014, 02:08 PM
Gentlemen,

Please be gentlemen. Please be respectful and considerate of others.

battistella

Huh? Who is not doing this?

Eryc Tramonn
09-24-2014, 10:48 PM
Lack of diligence is not my problem. It's lack of crew, shooting time, and lighting head rental budget. These lacks are not of my choosing, believe me. I also am very familiar with how to use a light meter.

Besides - some fixes that you can do in post with MX, that has more darks lattitude than Dragon Standard OLPF, are impossible to do except in post. No one has enough lights to fill in the Manhattan skyline at night, for example.

Rob,

I replied to your comment, but I was writing in general terms. And to be honest, I was thinking of friends from a recent shoot. I did not mean to imply that YOU were not exercising due diligence - I don't know you, nor the practices you employ on shoots, so I would not be so crass as to insinuate you don't know how to use a meter. I understood what you were saying, and I agree with the sentiment. Producers are increasingly asking for more, and often with only a vague understanding of how gear functions. Actually, I suppose that is par for the course, but that's another story.

Anyway, many of us are in the same boat. I was attempting to say, "with DRAGON's increased sensitivity we need a far less quantity of light to gain a usable exposure than historically." As a matter of fact, I find myself ETTR and "filling in" where necessary often.

And you are correct; there are tools for every job. But to that end, the RED covers a LOT of bases in one utility.

Gunleik Groven
09-24-2014, 11:27 PM
Let's not get personal.
Yup. That was a warning flag for the life of this thread!
Why?
Because I can!

If you wonder, threads generally gets closed for noisy and unfriendly discussion-patterns, not subject topic.
Repetitive undocumented general claims/complaints with no images to back them up, is also a good way to get threads shut down.
It doesn't help if the same claims have already been answered multiple times, or if they've never been followed by any verifiable documentation.
We're all here to help, but that's hard without verifiable specifics outside "I think/feel/have an opinion that xxx"

Did some simple testing the other days.

I am not saying that this is the issue for everyone getting exaggerated lowlight noise, but there is a huge difference if you start shooting the kind of exposures that seems to get issues, if you shoot before the camera has reached calibration temperature.
Yup. I know that that argument has its sides, but it is still true on my cam.

Now: This was an undocumented claim!
Maybe I should shut the thread down.

Play nice!

Update:
Have a look at Phils work here:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?122074-First-Look-Interchangeable-OLPF-on-Dragon&p=1421461&viewfull=1#post1421461


G