Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Helium Super16

Trevor Meier

Trevor Meier

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
855
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Website
www.trevormeier.com
OK... so here's dreaming...

I'd love to see a Super16 version of Helium. If my math is right, with the pixel density it'd fit 4K-5K nicely within the format. It'd be amazing to have an R3D-based, high-framerate, tiny, lightweight, low-power RED body for professional use in sports, action cam, documentary and all the other rough and tumble places where badass cameras like Red need to go. I'd also love to have it Monochrome for when I want that as an artistic choice.

To me this would be a killer breakout product for RED. I'd buy a fleet of them. What do you guys think?
 
yes, this would be amazing, high frame rate, this could be red's chance to get into the 500-1000fps game.
 
A Super16-ish cut of the Helium would be very interesting. Smaller, lighter, lower power consumption, less data, lower cost, etc. For handheld, sports, event, docco style shooting you could use more compact lenses with greater DOF at the same stop.

Unless most S16 lenses could cover a 5K Helium cut (vs 4K) it would lack the oversampling needed to overcome the Bayer penalty for full bore UHD/4K. That said, it should make great 1080/2K and get a lot closer to legit UHD/4K than a 1080 sensor can.

I doubt Netflix/Amazon would certify it for UHD/4K acquisition, but if they did...

Interesting times.

Cheers - #19
 
A 2/3 inch helium = 4.6K

This with a DSMC2 broadcast module + b4 mount on a raven like body = game over for 4K / UHD TV, live events, sports etc using bright big ratio TV zooms !
 
I'm not convinced you could get 4K line pairs out of 16mm glass. I think maybe the real question the o.p. is asking is, "can I get a much cheaper, much smaller version of the Helium camera?" Whether it's 16mm or 35mm or whatever almost doesn't matter when the real questions revolve around size and cost. You would definitely get a greater depth of field, which some news and documentary people want.

Look at it this way: an Arri 416 Super 16mm camera would've cost you $100K just ten years ago, which is not that long ago. And it weighed about 13 pounds, plus a lens, a 400' load of film and a battery.
 
Mikael Lubtchansky said:
A 2/3 inch helium = 4.6K This with a DSMC2 broadcast module + b4 mount on a raven like body = game over for 4K / UHD TV, live events, sports etc using bright big ratio TV zooms !
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure all the 2/3" B4 lenses out there are made for 3 chip cams, not single sensor Bayer...

Cheers - #19
 
Yes that would be quite something. And given that the Raven totally took the Production ability speed wise hostage, it could certainly work for Red quite good to have another Model that takes the pressure off. Also Helium sensors are easier to produce apparently...
for the super slow mo the Red architecture is built for very quick Raw waveform compression and this and also other forms like h.264 compression is not up for 300+fps. It would have to buffered. I hope the RED engineering Team proves me wrong! Having said that being able to record burst of 1000fps would be certainly a great addition and pre record and with fool control would be really workable... Question is how expensive is it for the extra infrastructure (RAM) and how well can the existing infrastructure decode R3d afterwards..
 
I'd love it. But I'd want a shorter base for the mounts to allow for old c-mount lenses in addition to newer PL-mount lenses.
 
Trevor Meier said:
OK... so here's dreaming...

I'd love to see a Super16 version of Helium. If my math is right, with the pixel density it'd fit 4K-5K nicely within the format. It'd be amazing to have an R3D-based, high-framerate, tiny, lightweight, low-power RED body for professional use in sports, action cam, documentary and all the other rough and tumble places where badass cameras like Red need to go.
Click to expand...

+ 1


Marc Wielage said:
I'm not convinced you could get 4K line pairs out of 16mm glass.
Click to expand...

That's okay.

Cinema audience typically is not concerned with line pairs anyway and starts to yawn when those and picture detail in general are talked about. Also, stories are not told by surfaces but by the meaning they project, so "only 4K" or so resolution should be sufficient for the next generations of filmmakers to be able to go with the Black Swan route equivalent if the story draws there.

:)

Marc Wielage said:
I think maybe the real question the o.p. is asking is, "can I get a much cheaper, much smaller version of the Helium camera?"
Click to expand...

It isn't.

The question is "can the same technology just sitting there be used for something else, reviving a perfectly usable format, and catering other styles and types of shooting."

Marc Wielage said:
Whether it's 16mm or 35mm or whatever almost doesn't matter when the real questions revolve around size and cost.
Click to expand...

It matters very much when:

- shooting real life with no second chances
- practicality is a factor
- not drawing attention is a factor
- shooting speed is a factor
- there is a single camera operator
- you don't want razor thin DoF in night shots and in general when you want deeper DoF without sacrifice of light gathering
- you don't want to carry, pamper and worry about a high-end gear setup all the time, especially when it is an overkill
- you don't want hardcase(s) and additional one just for the lenses
- you have to carry the camera and gear around but the assistant and arranged (or any) transport are not an option, and when you click the red button stamina/focus levels available for shooting are reduced by the amount of Kilojoules spent on hauling the gear.
 
Milano Questa said:
Not gonna happen. 4K is dead. Raven and SW were their last effort into 4K.
Click to expand...

haha, that is actually funny, i shoot a couple of network shows and just this year convinced them to accept 4khd material, you cannot shoot above that for anything network i know about, at least not for anything for viacom or abc. so 4k is far from dead and just beginning to be accepted.
i would personally love a digital super16 high speed camera.
 
It's not about cost, though I'd hope a smaller cut of the sensor might be cheaper to make. This idea is about utilizing an interesting creative format that's more suitable for high-energy environments sometimes than S35, and about bringing the size, weight and obtrusiveness of the camera down to suit those scenarios.
 
Cheap super high quality glass sounds unlikely
Why not just use Raven? I doubt a Helium S16 could be any less expensive than Raven
What would be much more interesting is full Helium sensor in Raven ;)
 
Why not just use Raven? Well I have the Raven and love it—it's amazing—but it's EF-only with S35 sensor size, large body, 60W power draw...

A tiny, low-power REDRAW S16 camera would be amazing for many uses that S35/EF-mount isn't the best professional choice. It's not about the cost, it's about the look... and the portability... and the power draw... etc.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
It matters very much when:

- shooting real life with no second chances
- practicality is a factor
- not drawing attention is a factor
- shooting speed is a factor
- there is a single camera operator
- you don't want razor thin DoF in night shots and in general when you want deeper DoF without sacrifice of light gathering
- you don't want to carry, pamper and worry about a high-end gear setup all the time, especially when it is an overkill
- you don't want hardcase(s) and additional one just for the lenses
- you have to carry the camera and gear around but the assistant and arranged (or any) transport are not an option, and when you click the red button stamina/focus levels available for shooting are reduced by the amount of Kilojoules spent on hauling the gear.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of this kind of thinking boils down to:

• we don't have enough money.

The best answer for that to me is: get more money. If you can't, expect less. There are small, affordable 4K cameras that work great without necessarily going to a 16mm sensor.

Bear in mind these are the same problems that have been argued about for decades. People who shot Super 8 wanted 16mm; people who shot 16mm wanted 35mm; people who shot 35mm wanted anamorphic. People who shoot cheap digital want better digital. A lot of the success or failure of any project lies more with what's in front of the lens than what's behind it. It's not the camera -- it's the writing, the performances, the lighting, the composition, and so on. People have to stop getting wrapped up in what camera they're using. The intangibles are far more important.

There are so many different camera choices for projects these days, I think all these technical issues are solvable to a point. But there are some "immovable objects" when it comes to cost where you just can't cut anything more. Even if the camera was $10,000 instead of $20,000 and 4 pounds instead of 8 pounds, some people would still complain. There are always compromises you have to live with, and that's part of show business.
 
To respectfully disagree Marc, it's not at all about wanting or needing more money. My shows for the most part can and do have the money for the right equipment. Notice in my post I didn't mention price? And Hrvoje's post talks about practicalities. It's about the right tool for the job. Sometimes in doc you can't get a shot except to get out of the way and let the shot happen. Or in extreme sports. Or in many of these other situations where lesser cameras are chosen because they are better tools despite their inferior sensors and workflow. Sometimes size, weight, power draw, depth of field, etc. matter.

The right tool is about enabling a look and a feel—not to do with money, but to do with factors that can't be bought.

And yeah, why shouldn't we ask for these tools, if they're possible? Why shouldn't we ask for a better motorcycle hand grip or set of sunglasses, or RAW camera that a mortal can afford? At least ease off on the presumption that it's about money. Sometimes value goes beyond the obvious surface-level price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top