May 22, 2014

Has RED's 6K DRAGON Camera Surpassed Film? Comparing Kodak 35MM, DRAGON, & 5D3 RAW

Camera technology has come a long way in the last 5 years. Dale McCready, the DP on the TV show Atlantis, normally shoots on 35mm for the show, but wanted to see how newer solutions stack up and could be intercut with the film material for Season 2. Since he already knows the ALEXA well, he took the 6K DRAGON from RED and his Canon 5D Mark III shooting Magic Lantern RAW and tested all sorts of different combinations of filters on the cameras.

Here are the technical details on what was used. This isn't really a performance sort of test, especially since the 5D was using a different lens on both the close-up and wide, just a test to see how well these could be intercut:

Lenses used were Cooke S4s and Cooke S4minis on the PL mount cameras. 
Canon 40mm Pancake and Lomography/Zenit Petzval 85mm lenses were EF mounted lenses for use on the 5D.
Due to the differing sensor sizes the lenses weren't perfect matches in field of view.

Filters tested were Schneider Classic Softs, Tiffen Black Diffusion FX, SoftFX and Black ProMists. 
In testing the filters I was looking at skin detail, halo (candle glow) and filter patterning showing up in the bokeh.

Here's a clip from the first season of the show:

Some words about the test from :

Sitting in is Actress Katherine Beresford. 2nd AC Alex Parish.

This isn't a precise test of latitude or fidelity, but a real world test of matching cameras to each other. The 35mm Kodak Vision3 200T film was shot on an Arri ST camera, processed and then scanned on a spirit before being imported into the Baselight system at Prime Focus in Soho, London. There Kevin Horsewood and I looked at getting a standard grade on the film. The Red R3Ds and CinemaDNG files from the 5Dmk3 were loaded straight into the Baselight and debayered from raw files as we graded. The .R3Ds were 6K and debayered using RedLogFilm.

There is still plenty of magic in the 35mm look. What's interesting comparing these together, especially in the close-ups, is how far digital has come in the last few years. So many big shows go through lots of noise reduction to remove the grain on 35mm, but it definitely gives it some character (and 500T would likely have been grainier). Film also reacts to colors completely differently than the digital sensors, especially Kodak stocks, and that all plays into how the look is achieved.

This test was done with older color science and the old OLPF on the DRAGON, but Dale mentions that he might try the comparison using the new DRAGON color science. The best part of this test for me is the filter section. While you can get a great look with almost any camera out there, the combination of filters used can do even more for your image. Dale provided an update on the filter test after shooting for the show began:

Started using the different filters on the show. The SOFTFX is great but reacts with the Cooke S4 front element to create big inverted flame halos so we don't use them anytime there's flame anywhere near centre of frame. The Classic Softs look really good in this test but again put a fire nearby and they make a distinct edge around the fire. It doesn't look great. Both best used for faces where no larger flames are present.

Didn't have these filter reflection issues with the Master Primes last year. Convex front element is probably the cause.

Check out more of Dale's work over on the links below.

Links:

Your Comment

103 Comments

Wow, this footage shows just how inferior the 5D3 is to Kodak and Dragon -- I'd rather rent for a lifetime than buy a 5D3 after seeing this.

May 22, 2014 at 4:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Bradley

Nice, starting this thread off right...

May 22, 2014 at 4:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

+1 me too

May 22, 2014 at 4:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

21
Reply
Bud Williams

Especially considering the Red and Film Cameras used Cooke lenses and the Mark III, a $200 canon pancake.

May 22, 2014 at 6:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Derek

The Canon got to use two very low end lenses while the other cameras were using cinema lenses worth thousands of dollars each. That's not a fair comparison of cameras.

May 22, 2014 at 7:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Ernie

Yea, I'm not a big Canon fan but the 5DIII, with hack, looks pretty good for most projects.

May 22, 2014 at 9:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
bwhitz

Yes, who could do anything remotely good with one of those cheap cameras...

May 23, 2014 at 4:13AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply

Flawed reasoning.

1) Obviously, the 5DmkIII is going to have an inferior-quality image. I'd be pissed if my $50k acquisition format was matched by a $3.5k one. To expect more is foolish. That said...

2) Despite this, the 5DmkIII is more than capable of inter-cutting as a b-cam. The difference will be lost on the audience (except for pixel-peepers like the ones we have around here). That says a LOT about the power of a $3.5k camera versus a $50k one. You'd expect an even larger gap.

3) From a purely financial standpoint... my investment on a 5DmkII was recouped within my first two music video contracts, and doubled within the first four. I can film whatever I want, whenever I want without renting, waiting, or any inconveniences.

The general audience of the show (you know... the vast majority that isn't into reading about digital cameras) doesn't notice and even more important -- doesn't care. They want a story.

If you want the extra dynamic range and a few extra pixels for content that will probably never make it to a big screen, go for it... spend your money on rentals. I wouldn't trust my money in your hands, though. :)

May 23, 2014 at 10:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Dave N.

And for a better camera than a 5D that also costs less than a 5D get a GH4.

May 23, 2014 at 11:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

On specs alone, Dragon clearly beats the 35mm film on resolution ... and then it's the esthetics, which is entirely subjective ... if you grade it like "Stalingrad" (2013), you can shoot it with GH4.

May 22, 2014 at 4:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

30
Reply
DLD

i think there are some technical problems with this test. first of all, the spirit is not a scanner, it's a telecine/datacine machine. even high-end arriscans act as a bottleneck with film density, that's why many scanners use double-flash. here is an example: at the s4/s4 mini test, the out-of-focus candle in the foreground is not clipped with the s4, and clipped with the s4 mini, despite the fact, that it's exposed one stop lower. this test is not exactly conclusive on dynamic range.
i was surprised how decent the 5D was. i expected something much worse.

May 22, 2014 at 4:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

15
Reply
visualbassist

I think the 5d holds up fantastic for what it is.

May 22, 2014 at 4:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
RickyG

At least until it's side by side with a GH.

May 23, 2014 at 11:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Go away fan boy!

May 24, 2014 at 2:23AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
RickyG

Thanks for posting this. That pancake lens (though it does have it's drawbacks) was good to see in the tes, though it would have been nice to see them compared with identical lenses (though I realise that is close to impossible).

This test convinced me to grab a 40mm pancake...and then I'll grab the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II Aspherical Compact Pancake and adapt it to EF to compare the two. 40mm is an oft-forgotten focal length that Mr. Gordon Willis swore by.

May 22, 2014 at 4:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Harry Pray IV

40mm is the nuts. The 40mm Voightlander is a fantastic lens on full-frame.

May 23, 2014 at 4:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply
marklondon

I'm not surprised out how good the dragon looks here, but I'm very surprised at how the 5DmkIII looks in comparison. Amazing what Magic Lantern has pulled from that camera.

May 22, 2014 at 5:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Max

I think this is a really neat test that just highlights how spoiled for choice we really are today. I personally prefer the Dragon footage. My dream camera is still an F65 in a C300 body, which makes the Dragon the closest option for me later on down the road. Having said that, I'd be happy to shoot with an F65, C300, or Dragon. :)

May 22, 2014 at 5:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

19
Reply
Coty

I'd be really curious to see how the BMCC would hold up here. I'd suspect you'd find that more often than a hacked 5d3 on jobs like this.

May 22, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

16
Reply

pretty good looking...I still prefer the "feel" of 35mm though. But it looks like RED has sorta lost the "RED look" which I always found a bit flat. I'm looking forward to seeing this camera on a real production.

May 22, 2014 at 6:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
nahnah

Ask the same question on the RedUser forum and 98% of the commenters will say "Dragon is superior to everything, past, present and future". 2% won't agree and be banned for life.

For me, it's not about the tech: it's a combination of sensor, lighting, and a thousand other little things. Dragon, in good hands, will be hard to beat. But a good story will well directed actors can be superb, even with a 5D.

May 22, 2014 at 6:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

17
Reply
FabDex

Actually, the opposite is true. There are a number of RED owners debating Dragon's color handling in this test.

I think it's important to keep in mind it was done on a camera with old specs that aren't in the currently shipping cameras. From what I've seen of the improvements, Dragon would've fared even better.

May 22, 2014 at 7:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Brian

I'm finally getting the sense that RED has taken a massive step forward in terms of their color-science, especially in regards to how highlights and brighter skin tones are handled. Great images all around.

May 22, 2014 at 6:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
avatar
Rob Hardy
Founder of Filmmaker Freedom
4503

+1 All three cams look great!

May 24, 2014 at 2:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

22
Reply
RickyG

All in all its a wonderful time for all us image makers. Film is a beautiful thing, but it is out of reach for most of us. This makes dragon so exciting as a tool for DP's and Directors to reach into the highlights and the deep into the shadows to tell the stories worth telling.

May 22, 2014 at 7:17PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Erik

Look at it again guys...the film still way better than Dragon.
Some sabotage to 5DIII here cause it should look way better.

May 22, 2014 at 7:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
sammy

Film is still so much nicer, just has a better feel and motion is even more telling. But the RED is getting better it seems.

May 22, 2014 at 7:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
andy

I you know how to capture light, or know how to light, any of those three cameras would work

May 22, 2014 at 7:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have never seen my 5Dmk3 look that bad. I use it primarily for everything I shoot and there have been very, very few times when I haven't been impressed.

May 22, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Daniel

The lenses they used were... I don't want to say crap... but odd choices. A cheap pancake lens and the second one was some weird specialty lens that nobody would ever use apart from special effect shots.

If they had used Canon's well made L glass, it would have looked a lot better, I am sure.

May 30, 2014 at 5:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Heiko

LOL. Red Dragon is not sharper. Give me a break guys. Just look on the CU the texture of her skin. Yes, the Red Dragon is cleaner in the shadows and the color science is almost the same as film. The highest resolution camera on the market is still the F65. Hell, even the F55 has a slight edge in resolution over the Dragon and it's a 4k sensor.

May 22, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

He's mixing filters here, so this comes down to the aesthetics in Vimeo's 1080p.

May 22, 2014 at 9:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

Can you provide evidence?

May 23, 2014 at 1:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

This was a test he did for himself I trust, i work in post and I can tell you the 5d raw is one of the best looking formats I have seen, the ever so slight difference in 35mm vs digital is for the most part not worth the extra cost in post, for a big feature it might not be such a massive deal but for the indy filmmaker the 5d raw hack is amazing, and too continue what people above said, comparing canons pancake lens with cookes is ridiculous, put on some old nikons on the 5d or zeis glass. 35mm in the right hands looks amazing, but the 5d raw is the best format I have seen as far value, if you have the geek knowledge than many of us here do, I can not wait till it is embraced by canon, if it is. Red epic, red has always been harder to make look good in my view, but they started the ball rolling in terms of digital capture and cost for the masses so we owe them that. I think if we got the 5d raw hack into the hands of pros we would be blown away, but then of course you would have to sell them on using the damn thing with its dslr limitations.

May 22, 2014 at 8:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
grant

Film all the way. Digi colors just don't match chemical colors.

May 22, 2014 at 8:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
VinceGortho

I think this test is unfair to the Canon, The Lens were not equal..so for me this test is not even 80% Accurate.

May 23, 2014 at 12:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
Z-Axis

Well, when Canon decides to use a real lens mount that might be possible. Sure you can use one of their "cine" style lenses but to be quite honest they will still not meet or beat the quality of image from a Cooke s4 or just about anything out there that is a true Cinema Lens.

May 23, 2014 at 9:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

11
Reply
Jorge Cayon

Canon does use a real lens mount! The 5DMkIII is a dslr camera, so it uses the Canon EF mount, like all digital Canon slrs. It's a good mount for a dslr and no photographer ever complained about it.

Why would they be making a dslr with PL mount? Get a C300 or C500, they are available with PL mount, because they are digital film cameras!

May 30, 2014 at 5:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
Heiko

Red Dragon wins. The eyes have it. Eyes are a dead give away. Eyes clearly look the best, and most interesting, in the Red Dragon. 6K does beat film.

Say bud, can you spare $60,000.00?

May 23, 2014 at 1:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

There is a lot of sharpening (from the telecine?) and grain on the film material which kinda gives it a nice look. 5d wasn't sharpened at all and apparently used some other method than ACR to convert it (it applies a good amount of sharpening to 5d raw on default)

May 23, 2014 at 2:44AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply
Mikko Löppönen

Comparing a $60,000 RED to a $3k Canon???? The 5dmk3 does looks great for what it's worth....I'll stick with Canon and use that $60,000 to buy a new BMW......I WIN suckas!!!!!!!!

May 23, 2014 at 5:00AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Kendrick

ahhaha +1

May 23, 2014 at 9:50AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
sebastian

+10000000000000000

May 23, 2014 at 12:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

15
Reply
JAYEE

Or buy a GH3 for $650.00 or a GH4 for $1700.00. Both look better than the 5D. The GH4 looks much better than the 1D. Who wins? GH wins!!!! ;-)

May 23, 2014 at 10:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

oh please...

May 23, 2014 at 8:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Pippin Rush

Can you handle the truth?

May 23, 2014 at 11:33PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

You invest your more money into your car then into your filming gear??? Your values are in the wrong place...

May 23, 2014 at 10:37AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply
Raul

How much money will you make with your BMW, $0. How much will you make with a Dragon bare minimum $1000/day , 2 months of work and the camera is free.

May 23, 2014 at 11:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
ryan

Dragon doesnt cost anywhere near 60,000 Troll

May 23, 2014 at 12:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
carlos

Or just buy a bunch of good Canon L glass and it will look a lot better than in this video!

May 30, 2014 at 5:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Heiko

This test ... ended my confusion between the bmpc 4k .. and the gh4 ... i Will stick with my 5d mark iii ML

May 23, 2014 at 5:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Arthur

Yeah, I've been leaning on the thought that the Sony a7S was going to sway me... not really sure after shooting 5DIII Raw for a spot today, and this little test. It's really an incredible little camera. Just wish we could get better post support, and the ML forums were a little more concise.

May 23, 2014 at 8:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Pippin Rush

This is a camera test, for wanking there are other sites...

May 23, 2014 at 6:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
Keith

I'll stick to film any day of the week. On the other hand, is just me or the DRAGON looks terrible -especially in color redition and highlights rolloff - ??

May 23, 2014 at 7:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Alex Roman

its just you

May 23, 2014 at 11:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
ryan

me too! XD

May 23, 2014 at 8:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

I'm glad you'll die a film man. We don't need "i love the smell of celluloid" types in digital filmmaking community.

May 24, 2014 at 12:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Natt

I wouldn't want to join a club that has you as a member.

May 29, 2014 at 7:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Indiana Ford

It's an inadequate test in regard to any particular medium being better than any other. An acceptable test would be to utilize the same lenses across every camera. It was an amusing bit.

May 23, 2014 at 7:59AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

14
Reply
someDP

I think the test was for a certain project, and the 5DMkIII was tested with the pancake lens because they needed it to be as small as possible.

At least that is the only reason I can think of for using the pancake lens in this comparison. I mean of course a 200$ consumer pancake lens sucks against a Cooke cinema lens. No need to test that really!

May 30, 2014 at 5:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply
Heiko

Just for fun author of the article should have said 5d3 is red dragon and vice versa. 99% of the commenters would have gone wow!!

Red snobs. Camera is just a tool...

May 23, 2014 at 8:28AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
gult

thay all look pretty damn awesome , is about the story not the camera, film looked sharper though!

May 23, 2014 at 9:49AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
sebastian

Oh yes, film versus digital again! I love this, let me guess which one! Ummmm I think i like the, wait! The 6k is …. Ummm WHO CARES!!!!!!!!

May 23, 2014 at 10:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
John Wilton

Again, this filmic argument thingy only exists on the internet. Out there, in that there real world, NO ONE is arguing about it. :-)

May 23, 2014 at 10:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Agreed : )

May 23, 2014 at 7:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply

I live in the real world and people are arguing about it. The hobbit in HFR is a perfect example. Complete film noobs were complaining that it looked like a soap opera or that it looked like their home movies. Meaning video. People notice. I definitely notice. I think the only people who get mad at this argument are wanna be film nerds who get mad they can't tell the difference between film and video.

May 23, 2014 at 8:05PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
nahnah

TLOTR was a curious image to me, but the international audience can surely enjoy the results produced by any variety of cameras. That said, I would love to have a chance to work with 35mm film but I am not a part of that tax bracket. The difference between these cameras in the eyes of most viewers is negligible at this point. But I stand by the rights of purists to extol the virtues of purism as long as they are speaking to an ever shrinking circle.

May 23, 2014 at 11:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
JTC

I've never heard that argument, ever. Ever.

May 23, 2014 at 11:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

15
Reply
Gene

You don't get out much, do you, Gene?

May 24, 2014 at 11:18AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I do get out away from the internet. That's where I never hear this filmic thing. There is life away from the internet. I don't think I know anyone away from the internet that has heard the word filmic. It's a word peculiar to a small group of video shooters. Not even all shooters care about the word. It's just a holy relic to a small circle in the video world.

Hope no one starts praying to it. ;^)

May 26, 2014 at 9:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

yep, everyone said that about the high frame rate, digitally look- that it was soap opera like and too realistic. clearly people want the other wordly 'magic' look. A greater separation from the real world not less, that illusion is a film look, not digital.

May 25, 2014 at 5:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply
chris

Everyone? Huh..... funny........

I never heard it until I saw it spoken of by a few on the internet.

May 26, 2014 at 9:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

'The Hobbit' looked GREAT to me. I hope to see more movies with that clarity and workflow! :-)

May 30, 2014 at 3:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

"Has RED's 6K DRAGON Camera Surpassed Film? " No.

It's plain to see it hasn't. But it doesn't matter.

May 23, 2014 at 10:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply
sbsk

Personally, I am now convinced of the contrary, but everyone has a personal opinion.
But now Red has developed a fantastic camera and we must give credit to the merits.

May 23, 2014 at 1:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
MAXX

It is precisely because Red has developed into such that some will never give it that credit due to it, you see.

May 26, 2014 at 9:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

14
Reply
Gene

Tarantino chimes in (hysterically, as always) from Cannes -
.
Tonight’s Pulp Fiction showing will be the only time during this two-week event that a movie will be screened in 35mm, Frémaux noted. Later queried about that, Tarantino said, “The fact that now most films are not shown in 35mm means the war is lost. The death of 35mm is the death of cinema". He allowed that the “good side of digital is the fact that a young filmmaker can just buy a cell phone, and if they have the tenacity… can actually make a movie” to help start them on their way. But, he thundered, “Why would an established filmmaker shoot on digital? I just don’t get it.” He likened seeing movies digitally projected in a theater to watching “television in public.” Perhaps as we’re in the waning days of May, he did allow for some optimism to spring. “I’m hopeful that we’re going through a woozy, romantic period with the ease of digital, and I’m hoping that while this generation is completely hopeless, the next generation will come out and demand the real thing.”
.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/cannes-quentin-tarantino-on-digital-as-t...

May 23, 2014 at 12:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

I like Tarantino and LOVE his films...but damn, this is a misguided, ignorant and obnoxious thing to say.

May 24, 2014 at 6:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

14
Reply

Just like the CD killed music. And then mp3 killed music again. And now web streaming killed it the third time. Nobody listens to music anymore, because it is has been killed three times, and everybody around the world is demanding the return of the good old vinyl, because it just crackled so wonderfully! ;)

When he says things like that, it seems like Tarantino has turned into a grumpy old man already: "in the old days, we still had real film. You don't get films like these anymore, you know!" ;)

May 30, 2014 at 5:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Heiko

How come I can't find any Red Dragon vs Arri Alexa comparisons? Am I just not looking hard enough?

May 23, 2014 at 1:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bertzie

http://www.cinematography.net/UWE/index.html

5.5K Red Dragon = Less real, visible final resolution than 4K Sony F55

16+ stops DR Red Dragon = Less real, visible final dynamic range than Arri Alexa (14 stops DR).

And now we all wait while Nofilmschool admins remove my post. My excuse is that I am drinking fruit smoothie (all those fruits sugars make your head spin, you know)

May 23, 2014 at 2:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Juhan-i

Thank you kindly.

May 23, 2014 at 6:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bertzie

Juhan, maybe you can not read!
This test was done with the old calibration and old OLPF.
Now Dragon have 1.3 stop better in high light and better roll-off, as well as the best colors of the new OLPF.
We Alexa and F55 and DRagon now is definitely better than the F55 and better Alexa, especially less noise and better colors.

If you do not know the things all the way please do not write!

May 23, 2014 at 8:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

16
Reply
Nandos silva

Nandos, there's no need to be rude. Just post the correct info.The other guy's post was likely made innocently, in the spirit of helping people.

June 4, 2014 at 7:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Kelly

yes correct Nandos,
Now Dragon have more and more... and with ADD is amazing.
Juhan you see this for information:
http://www.gunleik.com/ go to archive March 2014 .

May 23, 2014 at 8:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Luigi valtulini

We should go back to horses. Horses are so much more beautiful than cars. Cars have that metal look.

May 23, 2014 at 11:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

I am actually working on feature film being shot in red dragon (new filter has been put just before we left the rental house). I am watching shots everyday with normal and low-key exposure and what I can say is :

THERE IS NO BIG DIFFERENCES WITH THE EPIC.

I don't want that their is NO differences, no doubt probably a bit better (specially colors). What I mean is when I remember all the fuss about the dragon and that I am watching footage now it really makes me laugh.

Alexa is still cleaner and with better DR no doubt (I am talking Alexa's ProRes footage, I've never shot Raw with an Alexa). Film has still a better roll-off and more pleasant skin tones. End of story.

May 24, 2014 at 7:20AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bal

+ 1.

May 24, 2014 at 9:05AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

16
Reply
Rich

May I know in what circumstances, we are doing the test for our short film we with Dragon and Alexa plus.
For the dynamic range are equal or little difference in the colors much better Dragon, also for the resolution.
Especially with tungsten light and color in the Dragon wins overexposure is still present while Alexa do not. The skin tone is great, nothing to do with Epic. Dragon win on Alexa.
We noticed that Dragon 4 color light tone down a lot of the black, we do not like very much. but monitoring is fine.
We see very soft image of Dragon compared to Alexa, we like it.
We go from Davinci resolve for the color gradation to use Red redlogfilm. and ARRIRAW log to Alexa.
I'd like to understand why you say the opposite or if we are doing something wrong.

May 24, 2014 at 3:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Sailas Vanetti

Here we go again....Which camera is better? Is Digital better or the same as Film? If you are a good DP, you can produce a good image even with a cell phone. If you produce crap, is still crap even if you shoot at a 10000K. It would look like nice crap though

May 24, 2014 at 10:01AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

12
Reply
Luis

Oh look another click-bait title!

May 24, 2014 at 12:25PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Natt

Despite my distaste for most of the Red image in the past (and a few excellent examples from great DPs), this version of the sensor, even without the new color science, is much better to my eye. The tone isn't as warm as the Kodak on skin and there's that slight gray in the skin's mid-tones. But, damn, is the latitude and overall image that much better!

Not surprised by ML RAW from the 5DIII at all. I use it daily on narratives and commercials and the image is superb, even with the negative 3 1/2 stops of latitude in comparison to the big boys.

Test was a bit muddied though, but I like the results from all cameras (and film negative) all around. :-)

May 24, 2014 at 7:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

13
Reply

I get what he's saying. There is something about the analog experience that just can't be approximated. I think technology is advanced enough that it's really a debatable point whether one is better than the other, but it is a different feeling. Maybe subtle, like vinyl vs. wav, but it's there- you can feel it, and for some people it's an important difference worth preserving.

If I could build a home theater, I'd want both an analog and digital projector, for different reasons, and it would definitely be a distinct pleasure to watch the analog one from time to time.

May 25, 2014 at 7:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

9
Reply

d'oh, wrong article ;)

May 25, 2014 at 7:26AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Red skin tones = fail.

May 26, 2014 at 7:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

10
Reply
Neo

The TV show looks terrible. That "CG"...ugh. :-\

May 30, 2014 at 5:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

I think both Red Dragon and Kodak Vision are much better than what you can see in a compressed Vimeo web stream. Not that Vimeo was bad (it's really not, compared to other sites) but it still does not compare to something like ProRes, or other high-bitrate formats.
Even a BluRay is much better than Vimeo, so what's the point of comparing two very high end acquisition systems through a low bitrate web stream?

And by the way: kind of weird lens choices for the 5DMkIII. First a cheap pancake lens, then a 85mm F2.2 Petzval - which is obviously a unique lens system with very special characteristics and looks.

Couldn't they have used two normal, high quality lenses like the Canon L? Because with the lenses they used in this test, they might have just not included the 5DMkIII at all!

May 30, 2014 at 5:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Heiko

6K RED looks a fraction better then the 5D3 and a fraction less than the film. But then again who cares!!? Shoot the one you like and make it work. Personally, I just don't like RED. Something about the picture is ugly. I much prefer the original BMCC with its 13.stops and superior 'film' look. BTW, everyone I know thought the Hobbit looked awful. I mean everyone from industry to everyday folk. So put that in your pipes and smoke it ladies....

May 30, 2014 at 7:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
tunabreath

What i find amazing...the quality of a 3k camera is slightly less that the quality of a 30k camera. As someone said you need a good story to make a good film then i say 5D3 with ML. Thank you Tram Hudson and Alex from ML.

May 31, 2014 at 3:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Mahen

Hi would you mind letting me know which hosting company
you're utilizing? I've loaded your blog in 3 different
browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most.
Can you recommend a good internet hosting provider at a honest price?
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

June 1, 2014 at 4:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

flashlight taser combo

June 3, 2014 at 5:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I think the patience and consideration ARRI took before getting on the digital bandwagon was well thought through. I think ARRI would like to take as much time and consideration before developing 4k as well, but are being pushed into it.
Myself I would prefer ARRI took as long as they like so the end result is as excellent as the first ARRI Alexa. We have recently bought one after hiring one because Park Road Post do not develop film any more so we had to go digital. We have 11 years shooting on 16mm and searched for a camera which would meet our needs. We compared Red one, Epic, Sony PMW F55 and two canon EOS cs. The end results were compared and we all came to a consensus on the ARRI Alexa.
The exposure tolerance, organic look, and ease of use sealed it for us. All the other examples were like a computer with a lens attached, the ARRI is a camera. The focus with the ARRI is shooting not the technology. I still don’t agree with comparing Film to digital as film is film and a sensor is another thing. New ground really and I am happy ARRI are taking the ‘slow and calculated’ approach instead of hitting us with new half tested inventions every year.
Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.
Mark

June 3, 2014 at 4:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

OK looks like RED dragon has a serious noise problem

July 8, 2014 at 8:35PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
ronh