Komodo 12.2 stops of dynamic range in CineD test.

[Sergio Perez]

Komodos are being used everywhere producing broadcast and cinema content. Its selling like Hotcakes. I've used one and it intercuts almost seamlessly with my Monstro. I would assume the professional world thinks what this camera brings to the table is more than enough.

Honestly nowadays you get to a point you have to trust the company that makes the camera. Red is a Digital Cinema Company. Just like Arri. They are on the business of making professional cameras targeted to motion pictures and high end, broadcast and comercial content. They have a name to defend, a brand to keep. Its their bread and butter. Other companies, like Sony, Panasonic, Canon etc. have various different divisions and target markets, from consumers, prosumers, to higher end markets. Each of their offerings is well defined in category and you should expect performance related to these target points.

The Komodo however was developed as a B cam or a camera that could intercut with the other A cams well, with action in mind. Like Jarred said, something that would survive the mere seconds audiences accept from Prosumer and POV cameras in High End Productions. The internal REDCODE RAW compression in the Komodo is superior to every single offering in he price range for any other manufacturer not only in the price range, but several thousand dollars above. The global shutter is a unique feature that opens amazing creative possibilities. the dynamic Range? According to Red, close to Helium. All of this for 5000 USD. Its an incredible deal.

I say try the camera yourself, like Bob Gundu said in the beginning.

 

[paulcurtis]

Anyway, we're drifting from Komodo, which is where these concerns stemmed from (the internal Highlight Recovery that looks to be a hefty two highlight stops, which I presume/hope is quite a bit more aggressive than other RED sensors... or at least Dragon, which was designed/measured/metered pre-IPP2 HR at a claimed 16+).

2 stops is not unusual from my experience. Usually you cannot get the data pre-recovery to know in most cameras. Every now and again you get one that out puts DNG files and then you can see everything pre-recovery.

I don't have a step chart here from my Epic W but it would be interesting to see how it compares, that's true. Pushing the WB and then seeing how the channels separate is a possible way. But i was thinking about this. If the WB was done after HR then the reconstructed channels would separate too - so maybe some cameras do it that way...

HR in the real world may yield different results depending on scene.

So when the Sony FS700 first did RAW via the Odyssey 7Q it was uncompressed DNG and i spent a while ripping them apart. I discovered the green channel was about two stops more sensitive than the others which meant that HR played a huge role in that cameras range (which was perhaps 11/12 stops overall). Since then i've been quite aware that HR has always played a big part in the images we use. I realised that all our still photos in Lightroom are all using HR as well and you cannot turn that off.

So if you have a camera producing baked images then NR is most likely in play and maybe HR as well.

So as you say it's very difficult to compare. One scene could look perfect with HR and another scene might not look as good.

Also the HR approach doesn't have to be the copy one channel from one to another, it could be more nuanced and take the surrounding image into account and then in some cases you'd never know. Thinking skies, skin and so on.

Hence saying that all these ranges values are 'valid' you just need to know what you're talking about - step chart range, colour range, HR range...

Bearing in mind most of us are shooting people and often indoors with the world through windows - for me that's the test. If i can light 'normally' inside and still see outside (with a bit of a grade) then that's all i am looking for. My EpicW does this, and hopefully Komodo too. Of course if you are underwater or doing specialised work then other factors come into play - colour crosstalk and maybe colour range. YMMV

cheers
Paul

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Seems most here happily accept applying post-NR as a means to get closer to the advertised specs (which is fine).

Advertised specs refer to the "by eye" visible stops, meaning, yes, it has 16,5 stops. If Red claims Komodo has 16,5+ stops in any technical measurable way, there's no test really showing that number in any usable ways. However, 14 stops are actually there and able to be used.

But the core thing still remains; we have two types of cameras in the market, RAW systems that use post-processing in post to achieve results with much greater control and consistency, and in-camera processing systems that do as much as possible before condensing the image down to a finalized image directly out of the camera.

The different systems have different pros and cons and I've argued many times that the distinction between "video camera" and "cinema camera" has new meanings and relevance today. A video camera system focuses on fast turn arounds with lots of built-in tech that makes it easier to plug and play very fast and get a good result with minimal post manipulation. A cinema camera system focuses heavily on interaction with other equipment to achieve a perfected result by having lots of control throughout the entire process based on slower and more methodical approach to both image quality and sync with VFX, motion graphics and sound design.

So how do you really measure advertised specs for a cinema camera system that only gets full potential after the entire pipeline is finished? There's no heavy production ever not doing heavy manipulation of the camera material in post and the potential is reflected in the possible outcomes rather than the input.

Either you measure RAW cinema camera systems and compare between only them and not in-camera processed video systems, or you put the cameras through the entire pipeline to measure the end quality. There's no other way of measuring systems. Putting all systems into one big pile trying to standardize testing for everything ignores the reality of how these systems work. It's ignoring the intention and differences based on nothing but the current idea of only pixel peeping the direct out of camera images.

I've rarely seen any test that actually focuses on what we actually do with these cameras. The best example of a good test that does things totally different than everyone else is Steve Yedlin's test where he put everything though his post-process method. It's much more showing of the quality of each camera (even though he makes a point of not telling which is which) than any attempt at measuring the RAW image data directly out of the camera.

I think that people need to re-invent how we test these systems. First, ditch the big pile and divide them into video and cinema groups. You can compare end results in different types of work, but not the core systems. Test the RAW capabilities like Gunther here has done, but combine it with a standardized test of production. Not charts, not people in standard bad film school lighting, but having a standardized set that's locked and that shows low key, high key, models of different skin types, high contrast sun, low contrast soft light, smoke etc. Then putting all of those shots into a standardized end goal of 4K DCI mastering like everyone is doing with these cameras.

That way we would both see the RAW data, but also how well the camera actually behaves in real-world situations. The combined result of such tests gives a true overview of all systems and just like Steve Yedlin's test, would be much more telling of which system has the most potential. Combining that result with the physical specs of the camera, you can derive a point score based on RAW image quality, post-processing range, end result limitations and physical possibilities.

Without having that test done on Komodo, we could speculate what it might get. Mid-quality score on RAW image quality, mid-quality on post-processing range, mid-high-quality on end result and high-quality on physical possibilities. While a camera like Monstro gets high-quality on RAW image quality, super-high-quality on post-processing range, high-quality on end result and mid-quality on physical possibilities. Speculative, but such a standardized test would seriously rank cameras in a much better fashion than the sum of all the half-measured tests that everyone is doing everywhere right now.

 

[Mike P.]

So as you say it's very difficult to compare. One scene could look perfect with HR and another scene might not look as good.
...
Hence saying that all these ranges values are 'valid' you just need to know what you're talking about - step chart range, colour range, HR range...

Admittedly that's the kind of guess work I'm talking about/prefer to avoid, and why I'm not quick to write-off concern(s)... Where there's no good way to know for sure if it's going to look good/have rgb in a (particularly meaningful) highlight or is going to look gaudy/mono-ish/unrecoverable/only good for roll-off. Most other platforms don't rely on highlight recovery stops in there even over/under numbers/metering, and in my experience that works better even if they're "only" 12stops at +6/-6 (whereas CineD's Komodo scopes look to be sitting at -8/+4, unless you compensate to 3200ISO with NR).

(FYI: I could be wrong, too. Nick mentioned earlier that the mids are noticeably cleaner on Komodo... Maybe it's enough to bridge the over/under gap without pushing the ISO too high, despite CineD's scopes and sample scene pointing to the contrary. In that case, it'd be easier to compensate for and allievate concerns.)

Advertised specs refer to the "by eye" visible stops, meaning, yes, it has 16,5 stops. If Red claims Komodo has 16,5+ stops in any technical measurable way, there's no test really showing that number in any usable ways. However, 14 stops are actually there and able to be used.

But the core thing still remains; we have two types of cameras in the market, RAW systems that use post-processing in post to achieve results with much greater control and consistency, and in-camera processing systems that do as much as possible before condensing the image down to a finalized image directly out of the camera.

I disagree if only because it isn't the case for pretty much every other camera outside of RED. Take P6k's (Komodo competitor) or ALEV3's (DSMC2 competitor) scopes and advertised numbers; they have definable rgb in the same amount of stops as their advertised specs (~14 for Alexa and ~13 for BMD)... the "+" is the 1~2 iffy half-clipped highlight stops and 1~2 shadow stops in the noise floor beyond those full numbers (and could be recovered to varying degrees/quality). And that's ignoring that those competitors have an even over/under at base ISO (aka a useably clean ISO without NR).

As for categorizing raw vs baked/processed capturing, the distinction is made inherently by the camera, y'know, capturing raw or baked codec. The baked codec will invariably have less to play with, but even if their using NR and HR internally, they can't make-up info that wasn't there on the sensor (only maximize it at the cost of having even less room/colour/info to play with in post). To my knowledge, even with whatever internal processes they're using (whether that's Alexa's prores or mirrorless's 420 h264/h265), I don't think the gains are as big as Komodo's +2 mono-highs and +2 noisy-lows claims (which is a full 25% of its stated specs and, again, wouldn't even the over/under if you choose to count them anyway)...

...It's easy to check too; just compare internal codec vs. external raw of a Sony or Panny or Nikon mirrorless or the R5's 8k raw vs 4kHQ mode (which would also have the advantage of internal downscale)... I'm guessing it'd be less than a stop difference between the raw and codec captures (in terms of noise... the raw probably has more useable DR *without* processing). And if that is the case, the "but codecs use internal processing and raw doesn't" logic really won't hold.

 

[Bruce Allen]

For me the main issue is that RED rates Komodo at 16+ stops!

I am sure if you don't worry about color info clipping and also are willing to accept really high noise, you can get "16+" stops.

But it comes across like cheap marketing hype that in turn cheapens the brand.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I'm just surprised that after 15 years people are still up in arms about RED marketing...

 

[Bruce Allen]

I'm just surprised that after 15 years people are still up in arms about RED marketing...

I'm not. I just mention it because people may wonder why I'm on the forum but rent Alexa instead, because I prefer to rent cameras made by a camera company that lies less.

Don't get me wrong, I like RED. RED's just like your one buddy whom you like a lot but can't their hype take seriously all the time.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Mike P.]

LOOOL! I'm out here writing paragraphs to explain my hesitation/reservations, then Bruce and Jacek basically hit the nail from both sides in like 4 sentences. Ha!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I disagree if only because it isn't the case for pretty much every other camera outside of RED. Take P6k's (Komodo competitor) or ALEV3's (DSMC2 competitor) scopes and advertised numbers; they have definable rgb in the same amount of stops as their advertised specs (~14 for Alexa and ~13 for BMD)... the "+" is the 1~2 iffy half-clipped highlight stops and 1~2 shadow stops in the noise floor beyond those full numbers (and could be recovered to varying degrees/quality). And that's ignoring that those competitors have an even over/under at base ISO (aka a useably clean ISO without NR).

But it is the case. My argument was general and did not have to do with Red specifically at all. I would want all RAW systems to be separated from in-camera processed systems. And the numbers they give might be different from Red because Red seems to go by "per eye" viewpoint of the Xyla chart and do their numbers from that, while Arri might as well do it more technically measured and not counting what we see with our eyes on the chart. It doesn't really matter really because my point is doing all RAW systems equally and ditching all systems of in-camera processing to measure with.

As for categorizing raw vs baked/processed capturing, the distinction is made inherently by the camera, y'know, capturing raw or baked codec. The baked codec will invariably have less to play with, but even if their using NR and HR internally, they can't make-up info that wasn't there on the sensor (only maximize it at the cost of having even less room/colour/info to play with in post). To my knowledge, even with whatever internal processes they're using (whether that's Alexa's prores or mirrorless's 420 h264/h265), I don't think the gains are as big as Komodo's +2 mono-highs and +2 noisy-lows claims (which is a full 25% of its stated specs and, again, wouldn't even the over/under if you choose to count them anyway)...

Any processing will improve on the measurement of stops. It's even stated in the test "manual" that this is the case for noise reduction on footage etc. I just provided a processed chart of Xyla showing how much to gain from processing and cameras using in-camera processing already do this. Also, doing this internally can sometimes be powerful since it's done before any codec coding is achievied. Only advantage Red has is that R3D is pretty much the best cinema codec in existence. As I've mentioned in other threads as well, R3D is the true power of Red, not their cameras or anything of the sort, R3D is where Red has power in the industry.

..It's easy to check too; just compare internal codec vs. external raw of a Sony or Panny or Nikon mirrorless or the R5's 8k raw vs 4kHQ mode (which would also have the advantage of internal downscale)... I'm guessing it'd be less than a stop difference between the raw and codec captures (in terms of noise... the raw probably has more useable DR *without* processing). And if that is the case, the "but codecs use internal processing and raw doesn't" logic really won't hold.

External RAW is external RAW, not internal. It's the same as how Apple use hardware and software in tandem. Install Mac OS on a PC and it "can" run, but it's unstable and sometimes not working at all. Remember one system like ten years ago that I made into a Hackintosh that literally burned the GPU processer to the point I saw purple smoke through the fan vent. If comparing RAW vs codecs, the codec first needs to be internally processed and as low in destruction as possible. Most systems mentioned use super compressed codecs where there's no point in having a good starting point because you can't do anything at all with the footage before it breaks down. And RAW is crippled by other factors like the camera overheating and affecting black levels.
In the end it becomes a clusterfuck of reasons why some systems aren't going to work. Compare systems that DO work in RAW and judge the post handling. In the end, if the codec or RAW files breaks down, then "more stops" doesn't really mean shit compared to high quality RAW that gets processed.

I would love to see actual comparisons between Arri/Red systems and mirrorless/DSLR systems that do RAW. I mean, so many companies use "RAW" that I think people forget that companies like BM actually do in-camera processing before their files go into their "RAW" file format, since otherwise they have to pay Red for compressed RAW legally. Only true uncompressed RAW is considered RAW, otherwise, it's licensed from Red as compressed RAW.

So in my opinion it's still the case that true RAW systems should be kept separate from everything else and judged in tandem with processing and final output as I described in my previous post. It's the only way to judge cinema cameras and end result is also the only way to compare against other systems.

It's actually perfectly justified to do tests as Steve Yedlin did; take all cameras and do post-processing and judge how they behave. His test is a bit old now, but I would have loved to see him doing an update with, 65mm, Alexa 65, LF, Monstro, Helium, Regular Alexa, Komodo, Gemini, C500, C70, FX6, Venice and all valid DSLRs to see how they all perform in a real processed workflow... because every one of us does a processed workflow essentially, so such a test is more accurate than anything else.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I'm just surprised that after 15 years people are still up in arms about RED marketing...

Not all are. From everything I've seen I can deduce for a fact that Red just looked at the Xyla chart and said "16,5+ stops". That's how they "market" stops. It's accurate... from a visual perspective of judging it, but I don't find it rather accurate since it doesn't care for any unbiased testing that's being done. I think Red has one of the best DR sensor systems, but I would like them to be a bit more honest because it's clearly not 16,5+ stops in the way any other measures stops.

That doesn't mean, however, that tests ignoring the pipeline that get numbers under what we would actually get in real world situations should be considered true either. It rather means that, ignoring marketing, no one really tests the true performance or get any results that have any truth-value either.

I'm not. I just mention it because people may wonder why I'm on the forum but rent Alexa instead, because I prefer to rent cameras made by a camera company that lies less.

Don't get me wrong, I like RED. RED's just like your one buddy whom you like a lot but can't their hype take seriously all the time.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

Arri lies a lot too. Everyone lies. Their statements about resolution and subsampling over the last ten years is utter bullshit. If you think they are any better, you are as biased as everyone else.

I too actually like Arri more than Red. Mostly based on what I've actually worked with. I love Arri's color science and I've said numerous times that when Arri gets to true 4K+ resolutions the game will change... which it essentially has as companies like Netflix start using LF more now, almost automatically when they were approved.

Arri is just the king of sensor technology because of their color science and actual result. But... they're overpriced and aimed at just the top tiered. I can't afford an Alexa LF, but I can afford a Red, especially a Komodo. It enables me to do my stuff and it's more than enough to cover the need for great images. I've said it many time; if someone is unable to create their photographic/cinematic images with a Komodo, they are just bad cinematographers or directors. Komodo is more than enough to realize a vision, so you don't need an Alexa. Alexa is only worth it for budgeted productions that can afford their pipeline, Red however, enables more for less, for more people.

It's so important to include all of these details into everything. Arri doesn't enable anyone to do movies or creative things, Red actually does this. It's the main primary reason I'm even here and has been for the last 13 years. Arri may be the king of motion pictures right now, but Red enables more to be creative. That's pretty much a fact.

 

[Bruce Allen]

Christopher, I completely agree that RED has changed the game and made things better.

I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement though. I don't know why you decided that Komodo is somehow the bar where "if someone is unable to create their photographic/cinematic images with a Komodo, they are just bad cinematographers or directors" to use your words.

Sure we all agree with that point. But I'd go further and say you could actually use a cheaper camera too and still make the same argument. Like a Panasonic S5 for $1500 for example... if you want to go crazy add a Ninja V and record 5.9K raw! Also I don't think there is any law that says filmmakers need to buy brand shiny new cameras. The choice isn't buy Komodo or buy Arri LF or don't make your film. You can buy used or rent too. In Los Angeles an Alexa Classic WITH Odyssey raw recorder is under $100/day. 3-day week or weekend...

Overall in the lifecycle of the project Arri often saves me money vs RED. Easier to grade, easier workflow, etc. More man-hours saved.

And back to latitude, yes I do think even the old Alexas hold up.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

It’s six thousand dollars, not five. The “discount” many waited for and few got felt like an f you and an inconvenience to those at red, nothing more. The window was not clear, the site mysteriously stopped taking orders in its final week? Really not a good look for red. For what could have been 1/6th the loss they now lose 100% by people going to other cameras. As multiple REDUSERs have stated they did. Really too bad. At least Jason mamoa and you tubers have cameras (to flip). Unfortunately for true red users and hydrogen believers and purchasers we are left behind.

The site did not mysteriously stop taking orders. Jarred made the announcement about it on social media (like here)

As for buying a Komodo, you can go the one of the many RED Authorized dealers (TRM in France, CVP and ProAv in the UK, B&H in the U.S, just to name a few). Sure, there's a waiting list. But that's life. There's a waiting list too for Canon C70, Sony FX6, the Kinefinity Mavo Edge 8K Camera did not launch either as planned and is delayed way later, Blackmagic's URSA 12K pancake maker (don't worry I like BM products, just not this particular one) seems to be mostly unavailable as well and so on. You may have heard about a pandemic somewhere on the planet that may cause delays to a lot of manufacturing (Sony and Microsoft can't keep up with the demands for their new consoles, right now you mostly cannot buy one of the new high end GPUs from AMD and Nvidia without paying way too much for it or waiting a ton...). RED, as stated earlier in 2020, had to change a lot (if not all) its manufacturing partners to avoid delays and shortage at most of their abilities. (as far as I know, they changed their electronic components providers from Asia to Mexico) So yeah, it's frustrating to wait or whatever, but that's what happens when you have a global pandemic slowing everything down and a demand way higher than what you can make daily.

As for "the true red users" : either they already own a DSMC2 or an older model which are still perfectly good tools to work with, or they can rent one to get the job done no problem. Because by definition, if they don't, they are not "true red users", they're just "first time red users" or "or first time red owners" and that's totally not the same. But I think the "true" users are enjoying their Komodo. At least the Matrix 4 crew, Soderbergh and the others big CINEMA and TV projects are.

 

[Michael Hastings]

It’s six thousand dollars, not five. The “discount” many waited for and few got felt like an f you and an inconvenience to those at red, nothing more. The window was not clear, the site mysteriously stopped taking orders in its final week? Really not a good look for red. For what could have been 1/6th the loss they now lose 100% by people going to other cameras. As multiple REDUSERs have stated they did. Really too bad. At least Jason mamoa and you tubers have cameras (to flip). Unfortunately for true red users and hydrogen believers and purchasers we are left behind.

" "

----

-
As for "the true red users" : either they already own a DSMC2 or an older model which are still perfectly good tools to work with, or they can rent one to get the job done no problem. Because by definition, if they don't, they are not "true red users", they're just "first time red users" or "or first time red owners" and that's totally not the same.

I was a "true Reduser" before all but 205 before me. Sold my Epic-W anticipating buying Komodo at the Hydrogen discount. Was put off a bit by how it was handled and then it stretched out so long (while 1000+ "who knows Redusers" got theirs) that I bought an R5.

Not sure what it will take with DSMC3 to come back to being a "True Reduser" - lot of choices out there these days from startups to companies that have been around for decades and will be around for more decades.

I'm just surprised that after 15 years people are still up in arms about RED marketing...

It's not just marketing anymore - it's customer service and how actual "true redusers" got shuffled to the side - and what that portends for the future.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

That brings this quote to mind "you can't please all the people all the time but you can please some people some time" or something like that ;-)

 

[Han Vogen]

Strangely enough I thought this thread was about dynamic range. Turns out it’s about a disenfranchised group of self-purported elitist that’s call themselves “The True Red Users” :confused1:

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Strangely enough I thought this thread was about dynamic range. Turns out it’s about a disenfranchised group of self-purported elitist that’s call themselves “The True Red Users” :confused1:

To be fair the brand loyalty and the early adopters hold high value according to RED. At least they used to...

 

[Han Vogen]

To be fair the brand loyalty and the early adopters hold high value according to RED. At least they used to...

Please enlighten me as to how that impacts dynamic range?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Please enlighten me as to how that impacts dynamic range?

Right after you explain your "elitist" comment impact on the dynamic range ;-)

 

[Neil Abeynayake]

Right after you explain your "elitist" comment impact on the dynamic range ;-)

:willy_nilly::thumbup1::thumbup1:

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Christopher, I completely agree that RED has changed the game and made things better.

I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement though. I don't know why you decided that Komodo is somehow the bar where "if someone is unable to create their photographic/cinematic images with a Komodo, they are just bad cinematographers or directors" to use your words.

Sure we all agree with that point. But I'd go further and say you could actually use a cheaper camera too and still make the same argument. Like a Panasonic S5 for $1500 for example... if you want to go crazy add a Ninja V and record 5.9K raw! Also I don't think there is any law that says filmmakers need to buy brand shiny new cameras. The choice isn't buy Komodo or buy Arri LF or don't make your film. You can buy used or rent too. In Los Angeles an Alexa Classic WITH Odyssey raw recorder is under $100/day. 3-day week or weekend...

Overall in the lifecycle of the project Arri often saves me money vs RED. Easier to grade, easier workflow, etc. More man-hours saved.

And back to latitude, yes I do think even the old Alexas hold up.

Bruce Allen
www.bruceallen.tv

I didn't say Komodo is "the bar", it is "a bar". The same applies to other cameras reaching similar qualities, like C70, FX6, Pocket etc. But the comparison was between Arri and Komodo. The Alexa mini compared to Komodo, they're so damn close in quality with Komodo being a bit lighter and smaller which means easier to do shots usually costing a lot more due to gear that can take more weight, while Alexa mini is extremely overpriced compared to Komodo.

I would however argue that I don't feel Arri is much easier than Red, not nowadays. I do realtime editing, grading and VFX, without extreme expenses on post-production computation. I actually find Arri harder due to the disk drive space being extreme for Arri RAW. Then the argument is that you can shoot ProRes, but you can do that too on a Red, so at the end of the day, the "ease in post" argument is kinda past due at this time. But main point is that most people using either of these cameras aren't very good at lighting and composing shots. If someone says they can't do something with a Komodo and need an Alexa instead, I call bullshit on that.