Jump to content

Red Dragon footage


Michel Hafner

Recommended Posts

Well I see no reason to hate on the Dragon footage. RED's cameras continue to improve and this will likely bring it to the next level. Films shot with an EPIC will look as good as its cinematographer is talented. Were I in charge of a multi million dollar budget I would want to shoot on 35mm but that is just what I prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think it's hate for the footage, rather hate for the hype. Thing is when you promise the 2nd coming, you better deliver, else people will go, "er hang on a minute, you're full of it!"

 

For myself, i always try to pick the camera "best," for any given look/budget/situation, though my preference would be 35mm, maybe even reversal presently as I really miss shooting slides (elite chrome 400).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's hate for the footage, rather hate for the hype.

 

 

 

Personally I don't like ridiculous comparisons or the gloating that goes on.

Hype and excitement for a new product or upgrade is fine by me.

 

This whole thread was loaded from the get go tho.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own and shoot with a C300. I am happy to hear that RED has further improved their camera with the dragon sensor. At the other end, Black Magic is pushing the boundaries in terms of price by providing Raw capabilities with good dynamic range. Exciting times. I would like to see a side by side test of the RED with dragon sensor at very low light scenes as that is my most important requirement at present.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I notice the O.P. hasn't contributed at all and has no doubt gone back to hiding under his bridge.

 

Freya

 

I'm not hiding anywhere. Why should I? I stated it has more dynamic range than film. I find that very exciting from any digital camera. Especially if it's not an exotic lab animal but ready for release, shoots 100 fps and has 4K resolution plus. If you want to contest any of that, go on. It's quite obvious how dismissive some people here are as their default modus operandi when it comes to Red and their cameras.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michel,

 

I don't think Freya meant that to offend, only to point out the problem that quite often some of the "film people" attack any digital news so furiously that less often seen posters tend to disappear and become lurkers again.

 

As for the camera, I myself don't get excited by new digital camera technologies but having seen Pacific Rim I got to admit that it certainly did look good. If Dragon improves on Epic it can't be bad. Certainly looking forward to seeing well shot epic films with it. There's no reason to argue, digital can look great and Red cameras are not to be dismissed.

 

As for me, well, I like the look of film and certainly can't afford to own any high end digital cameras. But this topic isn't about film vs. digital so lets steer away from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm not hiding anywhere. Why should I? I stated it has more dynamic range than film. I find that very exciting from any digital camera. Especially if it's not an exotic lab animal but ready for release, shoots 100 fps and has 4K resolution plus. If you want to contest any of that, go on. It's quite obvious how dismissive some people here are as their default modus operandi when it comes to Red and their cameras.

 

It also has great low light capability, and it can shoot 200fps at 4k and 300fps at 3K.

It can shoot 6K native at up to 100fps. Supposedly it's more stable than standard EPIC and has less power draw. I suspect the camera will also be a lot quieter.

 

...but you didn't say anything about these points. You arrived and posted one sentence, about the most potentially contentious aspect of the camera, and then stepped away as there was a barrage of somewhat grumpy replies. It put a real downer on everything.

 

and theres always going to be some people who are dismissive of everything, from ice cream to heavy metal. Different people have different tastes. I would suggest however that you loaded the conversation and set the tone with your first posting.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you didn't say anything about these points. You arrived and posted one sentence, about the most potentially contentious aspect of the camera, and then stepped away as there was a barrage of somewhat grumpy replies. It put a real downer on everything.

 

Ah yes, the bridge. Now I get it. Sorry, missed that part.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The color science seems improved, though still not quite right to the eye.

 

The recent shot that was really impressive was the girl riding down in the elevator and maintaining the detail during the transition from above ground to underground.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

. I would suggest however that you loaded the conversation and set the tone with your first posting.

 

Freya

 

I was not aware it is offensive to say that some digital camera has more dynamic range than film. I picked that attribute because dynamic range was the most bashed aspects of Red cameras here in the past (that and colour "issues").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was not aware it is offensive to say that some digital camera has more dynamic range than film. I picked that attribute because dynamic range was the most bashed aspects of Red cameras here in the past (that and colour "issues").

 

By the same token then, one shouldn't take offense, when past Red cameras were "bashed" in terms of their dynamic range.

 

The fact that Red cameras (or any digital camera for that matter) sets itself up as a substitute for film, it is loading the conversation in terms of film. It is setting the agenda. It is inviting comparison with film. So certainly, if it is able to achieve certain aspects of that goal, such as dynamic range, then that is indeed commendable, and worth mentioning, but the loading is definitely there. Right from word go. It can not run away from this. It can't complain it is being, for example, "bashed" because it is the one that has established the framework in which it is to be assessed in the first place. It has defined the goal posts. Those goal posts being certain attributes used to asses film, such as dynamic range. If it fails to reach such goal posts, saying so is not "bashing". It is merely stating what is the case.

 

To say the conversation is loaded is to say nothing more than what is actually the case.

 

But to say Red cameras are (were) being "bashed" just demonstrates how adolescent digital can sometimes remain.

 

If digital wants to keep comparing itself to film the next step for digital to work out is how to get that extra kick happening. An easy start (and I believe Alexas as much as Red have already been experimenting with this) is how to capture more of the statistical components of the image that film is able to capture.

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with the endless cliche soaked celebrations of digital's technical achievements is the implied "see we're better than film" or "suck on that" message. The response one then ends up wanting to say is "so what" or "big deal" or "do you want a gold star for that". None of which digital deserves. It is a big deal. It does deserve a gold star. It deserves three.

 

But there is a saying about respect which is probably quite apt here.

 

Respect is something you are given. It is not something you can actually take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was not aware it is offensive to say that some digital camera has more dynamic range than film. I picked that attribute because dynamic range was the most bashed aspects of Red cameras here in the past (that and colour "issues").

 

It's partly bad timing on your part Michel. We are presently trying to get away from the nonsense that has gone on here in the past. Your posting seemed intent on pouring salt into old wounds. In fact when you talk of Red cameras being "bashed" here in the past, it makes it sound like you are back to settle old scores.

 

There are also a lot of people who happen to love film on this board, which I think is fair enough. Your posting sounded like you came here to gloat which is unpleasant.

 

I'm quite excited by the dragon sensor because it really does seem like a great step forward and I was looking forward to talking about it here. Then I saw your posting and knew that we weren't going to be allowed to have a proper discussion about it. For a while I hoped people would ignore it but sadly it didn't work out that way. I don't think theres any need to compare it to film. It isn't film, and some people prefer the digital look to film anyway, just as some people feel very strongly the other way. In practice there tends to be all kinds of factors that go into what we get to shoot on anyway, a lot of them economic, some of them not.

 

Everybody has their own reality. If you turn up somewhere looking for a fight, well you will probably find one because that's what you will be looking for, even if nobody's actually very keen on that.

 

One thing to take away from all this, is that suddenly the whole thing is about dynamic range, whereas before it was about resolution. I notice that Geoff Boyle was also very focused on this aspect of things when he was doing the whole, "light the blue touch paper and stand well back" thing. It's probably good to be moving on and to see lots of progress made in other areas too. I'm quite excited by what it can do in low light for example, and it seems to be no slouch at high frame rates either.

 

I don't think theres a need to focus on something that is an especially contentious issue.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The dragon is definitely coming along nicely. I think seeing Elysium in the theatres on a 4k sony projector- Red Epic with MX sensor graded in ACES - made me a believer in where RED is going. Now that extra stop in Dragon will help the highlights a little more. That was the only part of Elysium visually I thought was week - there was one overexposured shot that lasted like 4 seconds - a transition shot.

 

But I'm happy where the camera has gone. I just wish it could have gotten there a little more silently. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...