Comments on: RED’s Dragon Sensor: 65mm Film’s Newest Rival

By: Kurt Boomer

Kurt Boomer — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:51:00 +0000

I guess digital destroyed depth of field?

By: Christopher Binder

Christopher Binder — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:43:00 +0000

It’s a shame they can’t do the opposite and scan a 6k digital image onto 65mm and then make a comparison between film and digital. Or can they? Either way it would send them running with their tails between their legs and I would have the time of my life laughing my ass off.

By: Patrick Lewis

Patrick Lewis — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 00:25:00 +0000

Yes, I can read. Thank you for the personal attack… My point was that they are comparing a 6k sensor to a negative scanned at a lower resolution. In a nutshell, their comparison is irrelevant because it’s not dealing with the full potential of 65mm film. Would the new Dragon sensor be higher resolution than a 6k scan of 65mm? That would be a better comparison. Also, since nothing is ever really projected at more than 4k, then the final display of the images from this new sensor would fall short of the resolution of itself. I would just appreciate arguments that make sense. You obviously didn’t read the entirety of my comment because you would know that I clearly know we’re talking about a scan, and not the actual resolution of the original negative.

By: Vadim Bobkovsky

Vadim Bobkovsky — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:21:00 +0000

Debayering takes 20% of the res, not 50% or more like many prefer to think. 5K source should leave you with full 4K after debayering.

By: Vadim Bobkovsky

Vadim Bobkovsky — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:18:00 +0000

It said *scanned at 4K* can you even read?

By: Vadim Bobkovsky

Vadim Bobkovsky — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:17:00 +0000

Not in terms of effective frame dimensions of the negative, they probably talking sharpness. Red was always crazy sharp, but until now short in latitude, compared to film.

By: Vadim Bobkovsky

Vadim Bobkovsky — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:13:00 +0000

What is electronic Cinetape?

By: Patrick Lewis

Patrick Lewis — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:12:00 +0000

You can’t trust the guys that developed the tech. They’ll always spin it to the company’s advantage. I’m not saying that the 20 stops is a lie, but we don’t know if it reaches into the shadows more or the highlights. I think digital looks flat a lot of the time because it reaches into the shadows so much. You don’t get the nice blacks. The problem is that digital sensors are not exactly photon-hungry. They don’t handle more than about 5 stops of overexposure, which transfers into clipped whites. By the time you crush the pasty grey shadows to look more natural, you’re down to many less stops of dynamic range than you started with. Film tends to handle brights very well, while you may lose the shadows. I personally prefer to lose my shadows; it leaves less of a video look. Then there’s the whole linear vs. non-linear sensitivity to light in digital and film, respectively. However, I won’t get into that.

By: Patrick Lewis

Patrick Lewis — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:08:00 +0000

The people that compare a 6k sensor resolution to a 4k scan of a 65mm negative are (not Brooks Clayton) idiots. Of course the resolution is better on a 6k sensor, because you’re only scanning the 65mm to 4k! I would argue that 4k doesn’t get all the detail out of a 65mm negative. 4k is 8.3 megapixels, which doesn’t even match up to a still 35mm negative (aka vista vision). Trust me, 65mm is well beyond 8.3 megapixels. There’s also no mention of where middle grey falls or the color. I just think it’s misleading for red to say that 6k is a higher resolution than 65mm even though the 65mm is scanned at a lower resolution. 65mm is more like 50 megapixels.

By: Andrew Williams

Andrew Williams — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:47:00 +0000

Why are people on here talking like they know better than the guys who developed the technology?