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 :)

Is Helium really better? A Dragon owner is asking

Christoffer Glans said:
There is... Dragon 6K on a Weapon. It's the increase in pixels that makes it have lesser noise, color wise they are so close that it's almost identical in the end. The jump between MX and Dragon was much much more noticeable.
Click to expand...

Im not too sure about this, helium colors so far, even with the lastest firmware, to me behave very different from dragon. The more you cank it up the more you see it. So low iso sure looks similar but when you gain up the difference are more showing.
Different sensor tech for sure. It's a difficult pick, I like both. Think Dragon is a far easier beast to master Helium I find the result to be more difficult to get consistent results.
 
The examples and tests I've done between the two so far suggests that the lower noise is due to the higher resolution scaled down to 4K compared to how the process look in 6K to 4K. Color-wise I'm failing to see the big difference between them. As said, the difference between MX colors and Dragon were huge, but between Dragon and Helium I fail to see the proposed improvements really. What really makes Helium tick is the 8K resolution and the resulting quality of the process out of it. The differences in color handling between the sensors doesn't feel that noticeable.

But for me that's a bit "so what?", because both sensors are good enough with the RWG/LOG3G10 color science that non of them really have drawbacks. Helium is very good for natural/unlit cinematography, but if you shoot with lights then I don't think Helium is very superior over Dragon. A properly exposed and graded Dragon 6K to 4K compared to Helium 8K to 4K will probably be marginal in differences.

The one factor that I think is what people should be asking themselves is if they need 8K or if 6K is enough for their needs. If they need low light, low noise performance, then Helium will be needed, but only shot in full 8K mode and only when there's not enough lights. If people aren't in need of real low light and doesn't really gain anything by shooting 8K to 4K compared to 6K to 4K, then Dragon 6K with RWG/LOG3G10 isn't that much different from Helium in other aspects. So far I've not really seen Helium clips that felt like when we saw Dragon compared to MX clips back in those days.

A few argue that the workflow isn't that much different, but 8K demands much more from a workflow standpoint. You need more disk space to store all clips and you need more processing power to handle post production. Not even many of the largest productions have the capacity to handle everything needed for 8K workflows. If you just shoot 8K, grade and export a master, then it's possible, but everything involved with large scale work that feature VFX or special processing might get into trouble justifying shooting 8K Helium. As an owner myself, shooting my own projects I'm pretty sure Helium 8K is overkill. The actual benefits of it feels minimal when looking at it from a production standpoint.

Of course everything is different from people to people and what needs that needs to be met, but the basic questions should be: do you need and benefit from 8K or not? If not or if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. If you need low light capabilities that is far better than the low light OLPF, then Helium is worth it, but if you light and you never have any real problems with the noise of Dragon 6K, then Helium won't be of any real benefits. Color wise I don't think there's that much of a difference to the choice of getting it or not.
 
I have not done the pixel peeping that others have with Helium files. I have seen a few tests and read a few analyses, and I think I know my DRAGON fairly well. I decided to put orders in to upgrade my Weapon MG cameras to Helium 8K, just so you know where my biases are.

That said, here's an idea (expressed in a Google Sheet, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14wvBCzkMz7fqUYphsJVudziWJIokUgqzB6BH_cYnwuk/edit?usp=sharing) that Phil Holland might want to add to his toolkit.

The idea is that for a given optical reference (focal length, aperture, image diagonal), and a given imaging reference (how many pixels of look-around, Bayer scaling factor, finishing format, sensor pixel dimensions and format), figure out:

1. How much "punch-in" is available without compromising image quality due to running out of pixels (lens resolution is another problem!)?
2. What equivalent lens can you grab off the shelf to match your reference, and what aperture do you set for the same DOF?
3. What would be the equivalent optical combination (focal length, aperture) that would achieve an optical punch-in against the full sensor vs. just the digital crop?

My DOF conversions may be a little naive, but I do use the arctan method for computing equivalent lens lengths (based on FOV).

If you believe (as some do) that the best way to finish for 4K is a 2x scale-down of the debayered sensor, then, obviously, there's no "punch-in" for you!

If you believe that 1.5x scale-down is adequate, but you also like 500 px of look-around, this tool can show how 8K VV, 8K S35, and 6K Dragon all compare. Or, use 1.33x scale-down and 1000px look-around.

What the tool shows is that if you do shoot with a wide window for reframing, then 8K quickly delivers a lot more flexibility than 6K, noise or no noise.
 
Michael Tiemann said:
I have not done the pixel peeping that others have with Helium files. I have seen a few tests and read a few analyses, and I think I know my DRAGON fairly well. I decided to put orders in to upgrade my Weapon MG cameras to Helium 8K, just so you know where my biases are.

That said, here's an idea (expressed in a Google Sheet, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14wvBCzkMz7fqUYphsJVudziWJIokUgqzB6BH_cYnwuk/edit?usp=sharing) that Phil Holland might want to add to his toolkit.

The idea is that for a given optical reference (focal length, aperture, image diagonal), and a given imaging reference (how many pixels of look-around, Bayer scaling factor, finishing format, sensor pixel dimensions and format), figure out:

1. How much "punch-in" is available without compromising image quality due to running out of pixels (lens resolution is another problem!)?
2. What equivalent lens can you grab off the shelf to match your reference, and what aperture do you set for the same DOF?
3. What would be the equivalent optical combination (focal length, aperture) that would achieve an optical punch-in against the full sensor vs. just the digital crop?

My DOF conversions may be a little naive, but I do use the arctan method for computing equivalent lens lengths (based on FOV).

If you believe (as some do) that the best way to finish for 4K is a 2x scale-down of the debayered sensor, then, obviously, there's no "punch-in" for you!

If you believe that 1.5x scale-down is adequate, but you also like 500 px of look-around, this tool can show how 8K VV, 8K S35, and 6K Dragon all compare. Or, use 1.33x scale-down and 1000px look-around.

What the tool shows is that if you do shoot with a wide window for reframing, then 8K quickly delivers a lot more flexibility than 6K, noise or no noise.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, forgot about that one. Punch-in and stabilizations will have a better end quality on Helium, that's a huge point for Helium in my opinion. However, if you aren't doing much of it, like once or twice per project, there might not be enough value to justify the upgrade.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
The examples and tests I've done between the two so far suggests that the lower noise is due to the higher resolution scaled down to 4K compared to how the process look in 6K to 4K. Color-wise I'm failing to see the big difference between them. As said, the difference between MX colors and Dragon were huge, but between Dragon and Helium I fail to see the proposed improvements really. What really makes Helium tick is the 8K resolution and the resulting quality of the process out of it. The differences in color handling between the sensors doesn't feel that noticeable.

But for me that's a bit "so what?", because both sensors are good enough with the RWG/LOG3G10 color science that non of them really have drawbacks. Helium is very good for natural/unlit cinematography, but if you shoot with lights then I don't think Helium is very superior over Dragon. A properly exposed and graded Dragon 6K to 4K compared to Helium 8K to 4K will probably be marginal in differences.

The one factor that I think is what people should be asking themselves is if they need 8K or if 6K is enough for their needs. If they need low light, low noise performance, then Helium will be needed, but only shot in full 8K mode and only when there's not enough lights. If people aren't in need of real low light and doesn't really gain anything by shooting 8K to 4K compared to 6K to 4K, then Dragon 6K with RWG/LOG3G10 isn't that much different from Helium in other aspects. So far I've not really seen Helium clips that felt like when we saw Dragon compared to MX clips back in those days.

A few argue that the workflow isn't that much different, but 8K demands much more from a workflow standpoint. You need more disk space to store all clips and you need more processing power to handle post production. Not even many of the largest productions have the capacity to handle everything needed for 8K workflows. If you just shoot 8K, grade and export a master, then it's possible, but everything involved with large scale work that feature VFX or special processing might get into trouble justifying shooting 8K Helium. As an owner myself, shooting my own projects I'm pretty sure Helium 8K is overkill. The actual benefits of it feels minimal when looking at it from a production standpoint.

Of course everything is different from people to people and what needs that needs to be met, but the basic questions should be: do you need and benefit from 8K or not? If not or if it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. If you need low light capabilities that is far better than the low light OLPF, then Helium is worth it, but if you light and you never have any real problems with the noise of Dragon 6K, then Helium won't be of any real benefits. Color wise I don't think there's that much of a difference to the choice of getting it or not.
Click to expand...

You don't need more disc space for 8k, diskspace is only relevant to what bitrate you shoot at. High bit rate and you naturally need more disc, low bit rate and you need less. Both cameras cover the same range of bitrate options. It´s far from certain that if using the the same bit rate on both cameras the lower resolution recording camera provides a better result for the final image, far from it.

The needed post workflow to work with 8k I see as very similar as to what is needed for 6k. Simply you will hit a wall if you composite and do VFX work in 6k or 8k naturally you would downscale to 4k and only use the extra resolution when needed. So in that sense it´s one render from 6k to 4k or 8k to 4k and that render is not really that time consuming I do it on my laptop if needed.

The cameras are vastly different to me, both have their benefits. Helium still has some things to be sorted in the highlights, dragon has more issues in the other end. Not just grain structure differences when scaling to 4k, but actual differences in how the colors are interpret.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
The examples and tests I've done between the two so far suggests that the lower noise is due to the higher resolution scaled down to 4K compared to how the process look in 6K to 4K.
Click to expand...

If the sensor was using the same technology just smaler pixel pitch noise would increase with smaller light gathering units and image consistency in poorer light conditions would decrease.
 
Hi all,

I'm a bit confused about HFR with my Epic-W - from the posts I've seen in this thread, on the Epic-W, it would appear to be a massive crop if you want to use HFR - but according to Phil Holland's tools, 6K is only a 1.11x crop compared to 3-perf S35. And I get a maximum of 80fps in 6K FF, and 100fps in 6K WS.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Can someone clarify this for me? Is a 6K 1.11x crop compared to S35 really a significant difference? Especially if you're using S35-only lenses?

Helium 6K vs S35 3-perf

Thanks!
 
Homer Dulu said:
Hi all,

I'm a bit confused about HFR with my Epic-W - from the posts I've seen in this thread, on the Epic-W, it would appear to be a massive crop if you want to use HFR - but according to Phil Holland's tools, 6K is only a 1.11x crop compared to 3-perf S35. And I get a maximum of 80fps in 6K FF, and 100fps in 6K WS.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Can someone clarify this for me? Is a 6K 1.11x crop compared to S35 really a significant difference? Especially if you're using S35-only lenses?

Helium 6K vs S35 3-perf

Thanks!
Click to expand...
When people talk about the crop, most people are referring to the relatively large crop of Helium 8K to 6K, not S35 film to Helium 6K.

A lot of us got used to the FOV of 6K Dragon, which is slightly larger than 8K Helium. Then 8K Dragon VV was announced, so we got excited at that potential FOV. It's more about what we were used to and heading towards. It's not a big deal if you weren't used to it and might not even be if you were. I'm picky, so it did impact my decision to stick with Epic Dragon.
 
Akin A said:
When people talk about the crop, most people are referring to the relatively large crop of Helium 8K to 6K, not S35 film to Helium 6K.

A lot of us got used to the FOV of 6K Dragon, which is slightly larger than 8K Helium. Then 8K Dragon VV was announced, so we got excited at that potential FOV. It's more about what we were used to and heading towards. It's not a big deal if you weren't used to it and might not even be if you were. I'm picky, so it did impact my decision to stick with Epic Dragon.
Click to expand...

Ah thank you for that explanation. Makes sense because most people here are used to that FOV. I'm coming from a DSLR and this is my first real video camera, so *everything* is crop in comparison haha. I'm still trying to get the hang of a S35-ish FOV compared to Full Frame 35mm and thus getting used to comparing everything to S35 as that's the "standard" for filmmaking.

Also, this forum has been a great resource for me as it has been teaching me how to get away from a DSLR mentality of shooting.
 
What are the FOV implications when shooting 2x anamorphic on Epic-W 8k? Am I correct in assuming it will be significantly less field of view than when shooting with 2x anamorphics on my Epic Dragon in 6k ANA?

Thanks,
Mike
 
Hey Phil, I'm not the best at reading charts...Are you saying they have the exact same FOV?
 
For me Helium has more pleasing noise, and coming from Epic-Dragon it's at least a full stop cleaner (not to mention no more CMOS smear from Epic-Dragon). It also gives me all of the DSMC2 features which I would have liked but couldn't justify paying for a Weapon to get. Highspeed isn't a problem since 6k is only 10% smaller than s35 and gives me 75fps. 10% is not notable IMO, just go slightly wider. Especially since lenses are razor sharp, even pretty wide it's not like I can't open up on a really fast slightly wider focal length and get the exact same shot and stick to 6k. The big downside with Helium is that it's still not fully calibrated and has some remaining color neutrality issues that need to be fixed before it's a no-brain replacement for Dragon.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
For me Helium has more pleasing noise, and coming from Epic-Dragon it's at least a full stop cleaner (not to mention no more CMOS smear from Epic-Dragon). It also gives me all of the DSMC2 features which I would have liked but couldn't justify paying for a Weapon to get. Highspeed isn't a problem since 6k is only 10% smaller than s35 and gives me 75fps. 10% is not notable IMO, just go slightly wider. Especially since lenses are razor sharp, even pretty wide it's not like I can't open up on a really fast slightly wider focal length and get the exact same shot and stick to 6k. The big downside with Helium is that it's still not fully calibrated and has some remaining color neutrality issues that need to be fixed before it's a no-brain replacement for Dragon.
Click to expand...

I think this is a pretty fair breakdown, thanks for that Gavin!
 
Default Yesterday, 10:50 AM
What are the FOV implications when shooting 2x anamorphic on Epic-W 8k? Am I correct in assuming it will be significantly less field of view than when shooting with 2x anamorphics on my Epic Dragon in 6k ANA?

Thanks,
Mike
Click to expand...

Almost identical as Phil says plus being able to rate at ISO 1600-3200 really helps with my 2x anamorphic Lomo glass on my epic-w where I'm at T4. This is a real boon & I love the colours.

Craig Lees
UK
 
Sounds about right. $15k+ to go from Epic Dragon to Epic-W for a very subtle increase in low light ability?
 
mikequill said:
Sounds about right. $15k+ to go from Epic Dragon to Epic-W for a very subtle increase in low light ability?
Click to expand...

And twice the resolution. 8K is double 6K. Just like 6K is double 4K.

I also think the lowlight advantages of Helium are much more pronounced at 8K, as the noise basically gets vaporized. At 6K they start to become more similar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top