Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: KOMODO....

Reply to Thread
Page 593 of 650 FirstFirst ... 93493543583589590591592593594595596597603643 ... LastLast
Results 5,921 to 5,930 of 6493
  1. #5921  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,971
    RED Komodo low light comparison to RED Dragon X


    By brendan monteiro


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #5922  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Not saying that the AF is a joke, I'm saying that without a proper face-tracking feature it will not be reliable for most types of AF related work. You can't have something looking for focus in the middle of a take or while doing gimbal work. So the AF system will be unused by most people until it has software that can hold that focus onto objects that are important in the scene.
    The Canon or Sony AF system in video is nothing without their face-tracking and eye-tracking component.

    The AF system should not be included as a key feature need when considering buying Komodo. Only what is present in the camera at the moment is what you should focus on, not promises of tomorrow because they might not happen. We might never get a software update that enables face-tracking, because we don't know if the processor can handle that or not.

    So the important thing for Red is to at least "make room" for processing power to handle such a software, or else the AF system will just be unused in most cases. The potential of AF only occurs when we can shoot scenes wide open hand-held of an actor and the focus is rock solid on their face or eye. This is the whole reason why many don't get cine cameras and instead Canon or Sony DSLRs for their video work. A Red camera with similar AF function, even basic face-tracking in comparison, would really change the game for many shooters. So, in my opinion, either go all in and do AF with face-tracking or focus on other improvements of the camera instead.




    What lenses would you use on such a 12K camera? It's unrealistic in my opinion. Most lens manufacturers have just released FF lens lineups and there are so few cine lenses for cinema work if you go larger on sensors from FF. Large format still photography is unrealistic for cine work and medium format, which is Hasselblad and 65mm require very expensive and special case lenses.
    Better to do a new sensor, Vista Vision with 12K to get 8K distribution. But in my opinion, stick with 8K VV sensor and increase low light quality, DR and framerate cap. Going larger than FF is not a good choice and leads to tons of problems for video work.

    A 65mm cine camera would be a great addition and competition towards the Arri 65, but I feel that's more realistic as a special case camera like the Panavision Millenium DXL2 for work related to IMAX releases. Because of difficulty having cine lenses for a 65mm camera, there won't be any realistic normal sales of these cameras, because it can't be scaled up. Full format video is easier because it's already a format that has a lot of lenses out there and the new FF releases of cine lenses are easier to do than going larger.

    It's good to not stare blindly into "bigger and more" and think that's a good idea. There has to be a balance. Full format is the perfect balance between lenses and sensor sizes in terms of video. 8K is a perfect balance for 4K releases while 10 to 12K is the perfect balance for 8K releases subsampling.
    So having a full format 12K sensor, 19-20 stops of DR, global shutter, 3200 noise free and eye-tracking AF that can feed focus to cine lenses, would be the perfect camera. Aiming higher than that instead of improving other aspects of the camera body and handling is just a waste of resources for something that's a diminishing return of improvements.

    Personally I've not seen any actual benefit going higher than 6-8K. Noise handling etc. doesn't just depend on resolution and subsampling. Of course I see the better quality of the Monstro 8K over Komodo, but actual benefits, in my opinion, have to do with striking a balance rather than pure maximized power. Komodo in my opinion strikes a balance. It's not perfect, but close.
    An 8K VV global shutter 100 fps capable sensor with face and eye-tracking AF and noise-free 3200 ISO inside a Komodo sized camera body with low latency video monitoring and wireless audio built-in, would, in my opinion, be the perfect cinema camera.

    Aim for that, nothing more nothing less and we have a winner. Improving that further would be about keeping the same specs but getting it to be fan-less, low power with whole-day battery use etc.
    Christopher your concerns all make sense.

    If I was a betting man, I'd bet the following:

    RED releases at least TWO DSCM3 cameras with a larger Komodo Sensor.


    One is perhaps $20K, and is an 8K Vista Vision sensor (36mm wide, as opposed to Monstro's 41mm wide).

    This is for a general audience, and is everything you want (me included).


    And then another camera (that competes with Alexa 65, is what Panavision uses inside DLX3, etc) that's $50K and has a 12K Hassebad Sized sensor that can WINDOW down to 10K (45mm wide, which the Tokina's for example should cover) and of course 8K and below.


    That's my guess. Two cameras for two markets.

    Because as you say, not everyone needs a 12K Hasselbad Cinema camera.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #5923  
    Senior Member Alain M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Miami, FL || Maracay-Venezuela
    Posts
    488
    Quote Originally Posted by rand thompson View Post
    RED Komodo low light comparison to RED Dragon X


    By brendan monteiro




    Very Impressive!!!
    Alain Maiki
    Director || Filmmaker
    epicinmotion.com
    alainmaiki.com
    IMDb Alain Maiki
    RED Helium 8K S35
    RED Komodo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #5924  
    Senior Member Alain M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Miami, FL || Maracay-Venezuela
    Posts
    488
    I am very excited about the follow-up on RED Komodo innovation with the later DSCM3, particularly FPS speed, Dual Recording Resolution options, and LOW Light...

    SSD are 500 Mbps speed on DSCM 2, but now we have available the latest (nvme m.2 ) SSD Technology that run at up to 3000+ Mpbs range which makes me think that DSCM3 will pop some huge FPS & Resolution and DUAL Resolution (RAW+ProRes) surprises in 2021-2022 whenever Jarred and the RED team are ready for it!!!

    I am ready and I love it!

    :)
    Alain Maiki
    Director || Filmmaker
    epicinmotion.com
    alainmaiki.com
    IMDb Alain Maiki
    RED Helium 8K S35
    RED Komodo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5925  
    Senior Member rand thompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    7,971
    Alain,

    Especially when you consider that the Dragon-X is about $9000 more for the Brain only at $14,950 in comparson to the Komodo at $6000 for the brain before the $1000 Hydrogen discount for some.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5926  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    Christopher your concerns all make sense.

    If I was a betting man, I'd bet the following:

    RED releases at least TWO DSCM3 cameras with a larger Komodo Sensor.


    One is perhaps $20K, and is an 8K Vista Vision sensor (36mm wide, as opposed to Monstro's 41mm wide).

    This is for a general audience, and is everything you want (me included).


    And then another camera (that competes with Alexa 65, is what Panavision uses inside DLX3, etc) that's $50K and has a 12K Hassebad Sized sensor that can WINDOW down to 10K (45mm wide, which the Tokina's for example should cover) and of course 8K and below.


    That's my guess. Two cameras for two markets.

    Because as you say, not everyone needs a 12K Hasselbad Cinema camera.
    I agree, but I think they will release three new cameras and maybe some special model like Rangers, which in my opinion makes sense out of what filmmakers need.

    1. DSMC3 small body s35mm 8K sensor. An upgraded Helium sensor with better framerates and low light.
    2. DSMC3 small body Vista Vision 8K sensor. An upgraded Monstro sensor with better framerates and low light.
    3. DSMC3 small body 65mm 12K sensor. A new sensor to compete with Arri 65mm.
    4. DSMC3 Ranger model version of the above three.
    5. Panavision Millenium DXL3 65mm based on the 12K sensor.

    65mm models will be only a few manufactured, only sold to larger rental companies around the world.
    Primary models for s35mm and Vista Vision will be their two new primary models. Komodo will be the crash cam part of the Red DMSC3 lineup.
    Future update to Komodo will probably be a slightly larger sensor (like Dragon 6K) with Gemini style approach (low light is more worth it on the Komodo line).

    I think all this would be the only real way to compete now that Arri has its Mini LF and the Arri 65 gets into more and more productions, and BM has its 12K sensor.

    DSMC3 needs to be lighter in built quality and more flexible than before. I don't think Komodo will be a blueprint for its camera design, but I do think it will hint at what the DSMC3 lineup will feature. Like wireless video, probably wireless audio in, AF, built in screen for a rudamentary view, new media solution etc.

    Personally, I would actually love to see Red design their own lineup of lenses once again. This time, base it on a still lens baseline, like the Sigma ART series. But rehouse them to feature a high quality remote focus internal motor. We have yet to see these types of lenses made by any lens manufacturer, but it makes total sense to have a non-manual type cine-lens that works with AF and remote focusing and isn't the crap that still lenses are on this front.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #5927  
    Senior Member Nick Morrison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    8,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    I agree, but I think they will release three new cameras and maybe some special model like Rangers, which in my opinion makes sense out of what filmmakers need.

    1. DSMC3 small body s35mm 8K sensor. An upgraded Helium sensor with better framerates and low light.
    2. DSMC3 small body Vista Vision 8K sensor. An upgraded Monstro sensor with better framerates and low light.
    3. DSMC3 small body 65mm 12K sensor. A new sensor to compete with Arri 65mm.
    4. DSMC3 Ranger model version of the above three.
    5. Panavision Millenium DXL3 65mm based on the 12K sensor.
    I agree with most of this, but not new 8K Helium. I think they are staying with the Komodo pixel pitch. So that would be:

    6K Komodo S35+ (what we have now)
    8K Komodo Vista Vision (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)
    12K Komodo IMAX (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)

    Obviously, just a guess.
    Nick Morrison
    Founder, Director & Lead Creative
    // SMALL GIANT //
    smallgiant.tv
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #5928  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
    I agree with most of this, but not new 8K Helium. I think they are staying with the Komodo pixel pitch. So that would be:

    6K Komodo S35+ (what we have now)
    8K Komodo Vista Vision (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)
    12K Komodo IMAX (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)

    Obviously, just a guess.
    Helium is too popular among many productions that I think it will still exist a s35mm 8K solution. And 8K is probably the minimum Red will go, Komodo is a compromise because of the tech they crammed into it. We will see an 8K Komodo when the time is ready.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #5929  
    Senior Member Jeffery Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    684
    not sure who these cameras are for...

    that said, if regulations change on set and they might have to shoot a lot more chroma or plate shots, but the also the post-prodution technology for VFX is dramatically changing too... have to wonder what camera requirement we'll need.
    I have to try and change the landscape, whatever it is.
    -Robert Plant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #5930  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    Of course, but the key here is the things that have physical limit or challenges. Vista Vision is in my opinion both maximized in what the tech cost and what the performance is. Focus pullers are already struggling with wide open FF lenses, so scaling from s35mm to Vista Vision is not the same as the jump from Vista Vision to 65mm/medium format. The challenges and problems that 65mm produces require a scale-up in other areas that is pretty impractical for anything but the largest productions. So even if things move forward fast, doesn't mean it's reasonable to use it, either through cost or performance.
    Good point mentioning focus. This has already become if not an issue at least a special consideration scaling up formats and resolutions. At least from a stills photography standpoint 35x24mm has become the most used format at some point from it's origin because it offered the best package between camera size, lens size, lens speed and usability. Regarding focus pulls for motion images the same applied for 35mm (2-3-4-perf) probably with the problem inherent to film (vs. digital) of vertical transport and horizontal transport or an exponentially larger gate size bringing different problems.

    Now that film is gone larger format (around 24mm height) capture has become increasingly accessible without the older day problems of horizontal transport or going medium format in photography's terms. The question is, what are the real benefits going forward from there. And I agree with Christoffer, the jump from S35 to VV/35x24 is moderate compared to 65mm and even onwards.

    What is similar to film days is that we are now talking about linear increases in resolution vs. what we are having in this format (Alexa 65 at 6K). But the question starts with lenses. Most medium format photography lenses (Hasselblad etc.) actually have inferior resolution compared to high quality because although the theoretical resolution of the film increased linearly the lenses could resolve lower lpm because there wasn't as much resolution (lens-wise) needed because of the larger gate size. The 'problem' was perceived to be at the other end (35mm) at which lenses greatly started to exceed medium format lenses resolution wise.

    Regarding digital capture I feel that the thing we call pixel pitch becomes a third figure regarding resolution as it's possible to scale format and resolution more independently than it was with film. I am very aware of the great publications issued by Panavision & Light Iron and what Michael Cioni always states that more resolution resulting in softer instead of sharper images, but from a personal feel I think we already exceeded a point at which we oversample our lenses. This is even more so true for old medium format photography glass, that wasn't even meant to exceed at LPMs.

    So what are the actual benefits of going larger than VV/LF? It certainly isn't detail, because if lens and pixel pitch / COC match, we won't get much on this front compared to VV/35x24. We won't get more and more oversampling of lenses because at some point the benfit isn't there anymore either. Putting 18K or 24K on a lens that doesn't resolve 8K won't bring much benefit while there can be some from oversampling a lens that resolves 4K to 8K or 12K. So what are the befits? Aesthetically it become a thing and there are interesitng examples of real large format motion image campture (thinking 4x5, 5x7, 8x10) but that often falls under 'special interest' and might become one tool for the right application rather than an universal aesthetic (which 35mm 2-4perf have become to a certain extent).

    On the other side of the equasion the problems increase exponentially. Storage, stabilization (more noticed in photography than in film, but having 36 Mpix plus suddenly rendered the old focal lenght divided by shutter speed times two rule useless because to make actual use of the resolution images needed to become more stabilized), critical focus, size and weight of camera & lenses (look at Alexa 65mm and IMAX, it definitely doesn't suit 98% of productions globally). And I guess all these are points that guide in a certain direction:

    It can become a thing. But it won't become the only way going forward. Larger formats will always play a role, despite a tiny one for highly specialized areas. There are so many other factors at play and we have to learn that it often takes more than one breaktrough discovery to make a thing the only thing that's there in the future. Think about electric vehicles. It will not only need breakthroughs in battery technology, but also in power grids providing energy and in the long term in manufacturing technology to make batteries with materials that won't be used up quickly. Until this point it stay's what it is now: A special tool for special situations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts