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 VS Monstro

I all humbleness I could shoot a film with a Canon 5D II and an old lensbaby that would blow you away... As long as the story is really good and the director is a genius and the production designer is a genius and the production would let us do what ever was necessary...Experience and talent...Expeeeerience...
 
No one is arguing that, there are even movies shot on iPhone's

But there is a reality that cameras help you achieve things you cannot do otherwise. I usually shoot in really low natural light, so an A7S, Helium and now Monstro can make a huge difference vs a Canon or iPhone for that matter.
 
Misha Engel said:
I think it's smarter to spend that money on becomming a better DP(try to work with one of your favorite DP's for a couple of months).
Most of today's camera's are very good, so it's not the camera that makes the picture.

(Lewis Hamilton is faster on the circuit in a 200 hp car than an average racing driver in the same car with 250 hp).
Click to expand...


He could go faster with 25hp than I could with 250hp!
 
I've just spent a few hours testing Helium vs. Monstro using Tokina Cinema Vista lenses using my Buchla analog synthesizer as a test subject. It has many fine silkscreen details that basically become 1-2 pixels wide at sufficient distance.

I was principally interested in how 35mm/Helium compared with 50mm/Monstro and 50mm/Helium compared with 85mm/Monstro. I did the tests side-by-side rather than replacing one camera with another in the tripod (the FOV/magnification differences between the lenses and sensors required placing the cameras as much as 16" farther away). What I would say is this: to the extent that there are features that break the Helium image (CA fringing on knife-edges, lack of contrast due to lens softness, etc), they still break on Monstro, but less so. Recalling the SALT VV tests, it's like the Tokina on Monstro passes the fine-detail contrast levels of Sigma and approaches that of Otus, when compared to a Tokina baseline on Helium.

Taking a step back from that, I think the moral of the story is that if you really care about how the individual pixels of the image are behaving, you are probably using the wrong lens for the job: 2x or 3x the lens length will bring out those details far better than to 33% bonus one gets with Monstro vs. Helium. There is NO QUESTION that Monstro gives one a wider field of view than Helium, which means large image circle lenses provide wider fields of view on Monstro than Helium. There is NO QUESTION that when using lens A on Monstro that has the same FOV as lens B on Helium one can get roughly a one-stop shallower depth of field at the same aperture. And, yes, it is observable that when a lens+Helium combination begins to struggle with contrast in fine details, Monstro struggles less. But based on my specific test, I would say that that 3rd fact is much more academic than the first two.

It's entirely possible that there's a subject which, when tested, really highlights just how incredibly valuable that extra fine detail can be. It's also entirely possible that there's a lens family which, because of exceptional MTF at high frequencies, breaks much harder and faster between Helium and Monstro. But my intuition tells me that if the image really depends on clearly sharp eyelashes or clearly distinct hair or other fine things, then if Helium can't do the job, don't expect a miracle from Monstro. If I do find such a subject, I will certainly report back!

P.S. Monstro's larger pixels also make it possible to shoot HFR without relying so heavily on super-wide lenses. Helium at 3K is a small target! Monstro at 3K is like Helium at 4K.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Michael. That confirms all my suspicions. Monstro is a step forward. Helium was a step forward. Dragon was a step forward.

I think we like to get lost in the idea of something being "revolutionary" rather than "evolutionary."

Would I love to own a Monstro? Of course. Am I somehow missing out because of it? Definitely not. Helium is going to continue to put out great images for many many years.
 
Brad Grimm said:
Monstro if far cleaner than Helium. a stop at least, in my testing.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. My test was focused on resolution, not noise, because I've got to the point where Helium plus lighting solves all my noise problems ;-)

That said, I do see an opportunity coming up in a few months where I will be shooting in a very low-light environment and will be excited to see how Monstro and my Cinema Vistas perform at T1.5 compared to Helium.
 
Michael Tiemann said:
I've just spent a few hours testing Helium vs. Monstro using Tokina Cinema Vista lenses using my Buchla analog synthesizer as a test subject. It has many fine silkscreen details that basically become 1-2 pixels wide at sufficient distance.

I was principally interested in how 35mm/Helium compared with 50mm/Monstro and 50mm/Helium compared with 85mm/Monstro. I did the tests side-by-side rather than replacing one camera with another in the tripod (the FOV/magnification differences between the lenses and sensors required placing the cameras as much as 16" farther away). What I would say is this: to the extent that there are features that break the Helium image (CA fringing on knife-edges, lack of contrast due to lens softness, etc), they still break on Monstro, but less so. Recalling the SALT VV tests, it's like the Tokina on Monstro passes the fine-detail contrast levels of Sigma and approaches that of Otus, when compared to a Tokina baseline on Helium.

Taking a step back from that, I think the moral of the story is that if you really care about how the individual pixels of the image are behaving, you are probably using the wrong lens for the job: 2x or 3x the lens length will bring out those details far better than to 33% bonus one gets with Monstro vs. Helium. There is NO QUESTION that Monstro gives one a wider field of view than Helium, which means large image circle lenses provide wider fields of view on Monstro than Helium. There is NO QUESTION that when using lens A on Monstro that has the same FOV as lens B on Helium one can get roughly a one-stop shallower depth of field at the same aperture. And, yes, it is observable that when a lens+Helium combination begins to struggle with contrast in fine details, Monstro struggles less. But based on my specific test, I would say that that 3rd fact is much more academic than the first two.

It's entirely possible that there's a subject which, when tested, really highlights just how incredibly valuable that extra fine detail can be. It's also entirely possible that there's a lens family which, because of exceptional MTF at high frequencies, breaks much harder and faster between Helium and Monstro. But my intuition tells me that if the image really depends on clearly sharp eyelashes or clearly distinct hair or other fine things, then if Helium can't do the job, don't expect a miracle from Monstro. If I do find such a subject, I will certainly report back!

P.S. Monstro's larger pixels also make it possible to shoot HFR without relying so heavily on super-wide lenses. Helium at 3K is a small target! Monstro at 3K is like Helium at 4K.
Click to expand...


Its a bit hard I think to stay that "an image that depends on clearly sharp eyelashes or clearly distinct hair or other things then Helium can not do the job"... Helium as I know it, still holds quite high ratings as a good camera. Its possible to shoot most things with it.

Also in your findings above you test the two cameras with lenses that are fitted to the camera with a bigger sensor. Thats not doing helium justice as all. Try match them with best lens for each sensor. Like if you shoot with your tokinas on Monstro, use sigma art for helium or such, or Master primes, or Summilux C or anything good that has a image diameter fitted for the sensor. The extra gain in light that the helium then get is only fair play. As its far more easy to make s35 fast lenses than Montstro sized lenses.

Sure helium is a different sensor and For sure like monstro better but when comparing the two it´s important to really understand whats in play. And helium´s strength is it´s densed set of photo sites that makes it possible to crunch in 8k on S35 lenses and that combo goes quite far. using it with FF lenses or above and compare is only given some truth to it, not all.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Its a bit hard I think to stay that "an image that depends on clearly sharp eyelashes or clearly distinct hair or other things then Helium can not do the job"... Helium as I know it, still holds quite high ratings as a good camera. Its possible to shoot most things with it.
Click to expand...

You removed a very important word from what I said. I said if the image depends on achieving a certain level of sharpness, and *IF* Helium cannot deliver, then don't expect a miracle from Monstro. That if is very important. We all know that Helium can deliver amazing results with proper lenses, properly focused, at a reasonable working distance. My test was to investigate what happened when we stretched the working distance to a breaking point for Helium using lenses in my inventory. (If I had Summilux, the breaking point would have been farther away, but eventually it would be reached.)

My goal was not to make a statement about the absolute capabilities of Helium or Monstro. Rather, it was to understand how a set of lenses I have could or would extend the resolution powers of the various sensors in my camera inventory. What I learned was that for my lenses and sensors, Monstro does allow for a deeper punch-in before the pixels give up. But Helium is damn good...so good that when it does reach its limits, which all imaging systems do, Monstro shows a little stress, too. Maybe not breaking a sweat, but definitely working hard. I thought that was actually impressive for Helium. But Monstro did win...
 
I'm not sure whether my writeup helped or hurt the understanding of the comparison I was trying to do. Therefore, I've put up some R3D files which you can evaluate for yourselves. As I said, I had a very specific objective in mind for this test, which was examine the relative quality of fine resolution details for a sensor+lens combination where FOV(Helium + LensB) = +/- FOV(Monstro + LensA).

Here's a Dropbox link with two folders, 50 vs. 35 and 85 vs. 50: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/qc3drefpnr9tsn6/AAAeWHE6YrIaAUt9CdhplJg7a?dl=0

What I think you will see is that when I drive the resolution down to the one-pixel level (50 vs 35 test), Monstro does paint slightly darker silkscreen patterns than Helium, but pixel-level detail is weak sauce no matter what. Using slightly more magnficiation (85 vs 50 test), Monstro again paints greater contrast than Helium, but Helium does very well. Now, you may see these files and conclude just the opposite: it's like night and day! It's like a thin veil has been lifted from the lens!! Etc. Or, you might conclude "how can you really evaluate a lens using a test subject like that. Go find yourself a pretty model/lens chart and then let's talk!"

As always, if I find a new result that invalidates what I said about this result, I will surely report it!
 
VVvsH same lens by Björn Benckert, on Flickr


VVvsH same lens 2 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr


Above I see a les resolving lens in B / to the right as should be, when downsampling the difference so equal becomes somewhat equal, then I don't see it. Then ofcourse different back focus, focus, different lens and other things are in play.

Also see a slight difference in out of gamut colors, helium starts to shake a hair earlier. But not really that much of a difference.

Gamma lifted +3 to see them break more.

Below B scaled down the difference in sensor size to compensate for lens vs Sensor size, MTF compensation or what ever you want to call it. Then sharpens similarities get pretty even...

VVvsH same lens 3 H scaled down 25% to match MTF. by Björn Benckert, on Flickr
 
Another one with a closeup of the fringing of the little lamps, where helium out of gamut blue cracks more ugly. But green behaves quite the same.

VVvsH same lens4 by Björn Benckert, on Flickr


Again here H is downscaled to compensate MTF.
 
If one push the ISO up a lot I can see that the Monstro is much better. Its more even and far less splotchy. About 1 stop I would say, maybe more. I can also see a bit more detail in the knobs. Still Helium looks great.

/Andreas
 
If anyone has any old cameras like erhm the Epix MX laying around it would be very interesting to see a comparison.
Best!
/Andreas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top