KOMODO....

[Aaron Lochert]

Ho ho ho ho I know at least one lense that I want to try on a Komodo !

It's not a lens designed for short flange distances, so you're better off buying the EF mount version so you can use a speedbooster, canon's EF to RF adapter with built in ND, or other behind-the-lens solutions. Also easier to resell, too.

For short flanges, Laowa makes a 15mm that's a stop brighter.

 

[Robert Hofmeyr]

Aren’t Komodo supposed to be more like 1.3 crop...?

I thought the same myself before I noticed that Phil's formatcompare uses horizontal not diagonal measurements for crop factor.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I thought the same myself before I noticed that Phil's formatcompare uses horizontal not diagonal measurements for crop factor.

That’s because the aspect ratios are not the same. So in terms of crop factor, we calculate off the horizontal measurement since that is the dominant AOV axis we’re concerned with. If aspect ratios would be the same, then you can calculate off of any dimension horizontal, vertical or diagonal if you please.

So in terms of primary AOV/FOV axis, the 35FF is 1.33x larger than Komodo (36/27.03 = 1.33), or a 0.77x center crop of the usable 35mm frame. If we calculate off diagonals, that just tells us the difference in surface area or how much relationship in image circle for lens coverage.

 

[Robert Hofmeyr]

That’s because the aspect ratios are not the same. So in terms of crop factor, we calculate off the horizontal measurement since that is the dominant AOV axis we’re concerned with. If aspect ratios would be the same, then you can calculate off of any dimension horizontal, vertical or diagonal if you please.

So in terms of primary AOV/FOV axis, the 35FF is 1.33x larger than Komodo (36/27.03 = 1.33), or a 0.77x center crop of the usable 35mm frame. If we calculate off diagonals, that just tells us the difference in surface area or how much relationship in image circle for lens coverage.

Thanks Jeff, I thought crop factor was always calculated from the diagonal ratio. So, when calculating the crop factor when using a 0.71x speedbooster, do we use 1.33x or 1.42x as the crop factor for Komodo?

 

[Aaron Lochert]

When talking coverage, you should only look at maximum format diagonals, regardless of aspect ratio, since FF optics are designed to cover the full 3:2, not some cropped down version of Full Frame.

Full format (regardless of aspect ratio) diagonals: 43.27mm / 30.56mm = 1.42

Only when trying to calculate equivalent focal lengths/FoV do you consider the aspect ratio. Komodo is only a 1.33x crop factor when delivering wider than Komodo's native 1.9:1. At 16:9 in both formats it's a 1.42. And for shits and giggles, at a FF's native 3:2 or taller ratio, Komodo is a 1.68 crop.

As far as the speed booster discussion, however, we don't know when the booster begins to impart any vignetting of its own. Usually you see numbers like 1.15x after reduction, the maximum reduced crop factor I've seen so far with Full Frame glass is 1.07x with a 0.71 booster on a Fuji X. So I'm really curious if a perfect 1.0x crop is possible. I guess someone could test it on an A7S in full frame mode and see where the vignettes happen.

On a side note, the Hasselblad V to Fuji GFX booster is resulting in a 1.03x crop relative to the larger format. So that's pretty efficient. I'm sure there's more at play there than meets the eye, though.

 

[Daniel Porto]

That’s because the aspect ratios are not the same. So in terms of crop factor, we calculate off the horizontal measurement since that is the dominant AOV axis we’re concerned with. If aspect ratios would be the same, then you can calculate off of any dimension horizontal, vertical or diagonal if you please.

So in terms of primary AOV/FOV axis, the 35FF is 1.33x larger than Komodo (36/27.03 = 1.33), or a 0.77x center crop of the usable 35mm frame. If we calculate off diagonals, that just tells us the difference in surface area or how much relationship in image circle for lens coverage.

Noob question. What is crop factor? What aspect ratio and/or pixel count is 1.0x? I’ve never understood it but well versed with various different capture formats (primarily in terms of 35mm film capture formats)

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Noob question. What is crop factor? What aspect ratio and/or pixel count is 1.0x? I’ve never understood it but well versed with various different capture formats (primarily in terms of 35mm film capture formats)

Crop factor is a ratio in which you can compare a larger format to a smaller format. This term grew out of the film photography world when comparing "full frame", as in 135 35mm format film to APS-H, APS-C, and APS-P, smaller formats introduced in '96, but most commonly APS-C. It's since carried into the digital domain, though these days, APS-C sensors are a little smaller than the film format was; it's closer to 1.5x-1.6. Although you could use crop factor in relation to any two formats, 99% of the time when someone says "crop factor" they're meaning in reference to the 135 film size of 36mm x 24mm.

Essentially it's a short-hand way of understanding how a focal length might look on different formats.

So if you're comfortable with how wide a 35mm lens looks on a full frame camera, you might instead grab a 24mm if you're shooting on an APS-C camera to get the same field of view. Or the other way, if you're a big super 35/APS-C guy, when you move on to a larger format, you'll know how to translate your "go-to" lens choices for the new format.

But if you're already comfortable with what you like on different formats, then more power to you. I personally hate the "crop factor" thing because there was a lot of negativity around it a while back. You often saw less experienced people moving over from the photography world acting like they can't possibly shoot a damn movie if the sensor is too small, all while ignoring that Super 35 is and has been the standard for years. And before that, even smaller. But I digress...

 

[Björn Benckert]

Noob question. What is crop factor? What aspect ratio and/or pixel count is 1.0x? I’ve never understood it but well versed with various different capture formats (primarily in terms of 35mm film capture formats)

Its a dumb way of saying how big a sensor is. Basically the difference in size between the given sensor and the 35mm still format, 36×24 mm that was commonly used for still film photography. It has an aspect ratio of 3:2, and a diagonal measurement of approximately 43mm.

People also talk about horizontal, vertical and diagonal crop factors to complicate things.

To me the mesurments of the given sensor in millimeters is way more telling. And sure nice to get the aspect ratio and diagonal mesurment as well even though both of those can be calculated from the width and height.

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

Its a dumb way of saying how big a sensor is. Basically the difference in size between the given sensor and the 35mm still format, 36×24 mm that was commonly used for still film photography. It has an aspect ratio of 3:2, and a diagonal measurement of approximately 43mm.

People also talk about horizontal, vertical and diagonal crop factors to complicate things.

To me the mesurments of the given sensor in millimeters is way more telling. And sure nice to get the aspect ratio and diagonal mesurment as well even though both of those can be calculated from the width and height.

Yeah but it also helps to know how a lense would look since they are all marked in "35mm Full Frame still format".
For example, a 35mm on Komodo will give you the field of view of a 50mm on a full frame stills camera.

 

[Robert Hofmeyr]

When talking coverage, you should only look at maximum format diagonals, regardless of aspect ratio, since FF optics are designed to cover the full 3:2, not some cropped down version of Full Frame.

Full format (regardless of aspect ratio) diagonals: 43.27mm / 30.56mm = 1.42

Only when trying to calculate equivalent focal lengths/FoV do you consider the aspect ratio. Komodo is only a 1.33x crop factor when delivering wider than Komodo's native 1.9:1. At 16:9 in both formats it's a 1.42. And for shits and giggles, at a FF's native 3:2 or taller ratio, Komodo is a 1.68 crop.

As far as the speed booster discussion, however, we don't know when the booster begins to impart any vignetting of its own. Usually you see numbers like 1.15x after reduction, the maximum reduced crop factor I've seen so far with Full Frame glass is 1.07x with a 0.71 booster on a Fuji X. So I'm really curious if a perfect 1.0x crop is possible. I guess someone could test it on an A7S in full frame mode and see where the vignettes happen.

On a side note, the Hasselblad V to Fuji GFX booster is resulting in a 1.03x crop relative to the larger format. So that's pretty efficient. I'm sure there's more at play there than meets the eye, though.

Thanks Aaron, that's helpful. I think Red uses diagonals to calculate crop factors here: https://www.red.com/crop-factor

 

[Michael Tiemann]

It's not a lens designed for short flange distances, so you're better off buying the EF mount version so you can use a speedbooster, canon's EF to RF adapter with built in ND, or other behind-the-lens solutions. Also easier to resell, too.

For short flanges, Laowa makes a 15mm that's a stop brighter.

Good advice! I have the 12mm which is brilliant on my Monstro VV. But it's a waste having such a large image circle and it's a question whether such a wide-angle lens plays nice with speed boosters. My Tokina 18mm T1.5 on a Monstro is wider and a stop faster than the Laowa 15 f2 would be on Komodo. But it's also quite a bit larger, heavier, and more expensive (not to mention cost of Monstro vs. Komodo is no joke, either).

 

[Björn Benckert]

Yeah but it also helps to know how a lense would look since they are all marked in "35mm Full Frame still format".
For example, a 35mm on Komodo will give you the field of view of a 50mm on a full frame stills camera.

Far from all lenses are built for "35mm Full Frame still format" Some is APS-C, some is accademy and other covers S35, 16mm 8mm 65mm, etc etc... It gets a bit complicated when the the lens or the sensor is related to 35mm Full format.

Diagonal coverage in millimeters are interesting for lenses. H x V in mm is relevant for sensors and offcourse also the diagonal, aspect ratio etc. But all those could actually be driven from the HxV. But only say crop factor relative to a random format is a bit odd I think. FF still is quite random when speaking about cinema cameras, and most other cameras and lenses as well.

 

[Christopher A. Bell]

Yeah but it also helps to know how a lense would look since they are all marked in "35mm Full Frame still format".
For example, a 35mm on Komodo will give you the field of view of a 50mm on a full frame stills camera.

But it would still be a 35mm lens. That doesn’t change. It doesn’t all of a sudden become a “50mm lens”, because it’s going to give you the same AoV/FoV that a 50m would on a FF35 camera. Lenses are marked in their actual focal length, regardless of the sensor size they are designed for. It doesn’t matter if it was designed for FF35, APS-C, s-35, 2/3”, etc. If you take a 35mm lens designed for FF35 and put it on a s35 camera and then take a 35mm lens designed for a s35 camera, the angle of view/fov will be exactly the same with either lens on the camera. It’s up to the user to know what a given focal length will look like with a given sensor size. FF35 is not the “standard” by which everything else is compared , especially in TV/Movie production. You really didn’t see these types of comparisons being made in TV/Movie production until the ‘DSLR Revolution’ and the huge influx of people coming in that cut their teeth on 5D’s.

Of course this goes without saying that we’re not talking about if any type of speed booster or other optical tricks are introduced into the system.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

But it would still be a 35mm lens. That doesn’t change. It doesn’t all of a sudden become a “50mm lens”, because it’s going to give you the same AoV/FoV that a 50m would on a FF35 camera. Lenses are marked in their actual focal length, regardless of the sensor size they are designed for. It doesn’t matter if it was designed for FF35, APS-C, s-35, 2/3”, etc. If you take a 35mm lens designed for FF35 and put it on a s35 camera and then take a 35mm lens designed for a s35 camera, the angle of view/fov will be exactly the same with either lens on the camera. It’s up to the user to know what a given focal length will look like with a given sensor size. FF35 is not the “standard” by which everything else is compared , especially in TV/Movie production. You really didn’t see these types of comparisons being made in TV/Movie production until the ‘DSLR Revolution’ and the huge influx of people coming in that cut their teeth on 5D’s.

Of course this goes without saying that we’re not talking about if any type of speed booster or other optical tricks are introduced into the system.

I'm a big fan of thinking about these things in terms of absolute degrees of Angle of View. It's format agnostic. It avoids the concept of a "master" format and it also avoids getting emotionally attached to certain focal lengths like they have any sort of inherent voodoo/magic. So for me, I like to play in the 70-40 degree horizontal angle of view. That happens to be 21-41mm on Helium, but 18-35mm on S35 (Sigma nailed that one), 9-17mm on S16, 25-50mm on FF35, 29-56mm on Monstro, 40-75mm on Alexa 65, etc. etc.

 

[Mathias Erichsen]

Hoping for some news regarding Komodo
Any chance at all of getting it by early January 2020? (I have Hydrogen #392) I have a project coming up where Komodo probably would be pretty perfect...

 

[Ben Hensley]

Hoping for some news regarding Komodo
Any chance at all of getting it by early January 2020? (I have Hydrogen #392) I have a project coming up where Komodo probably would be pretty perfect...

From reading through here. I doubt it. I'd guess it'd be March or April.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I think we all have projects that Komodo would be perfect for.

I’m probably going to be building me a Komodo kit that goes pretty much everywhere with me.

 

[Mathias Erichsen]

I think we all have projects that Komodo would be perfect for.

Hehe!
I guess you are absolutely right.

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

What's the kit?

How do you feel about 6K? There are no 6K TV's.

It's either 4K or 8K.

Why 6K? I know it "downsamples greatly to 4K."

But would you choose Komodo over Helium? 8K?

8K is the future, 6K is.... Competitive to BM and Others.

Yes and no. RED was doing 6K sensors well before everyone else.
As you said 6K downsamples greatly to 4K (but 8K does that even better duuuuh) but it also upscales quite well to 8K if needed (granting the upscale is done properly... But there's a ton of things shot on the Alexa and mastered in 2K that are upcaled to 4K for Blu-ray and streming releases and it works very well.
So in a world of CINEMA (RED makes CINEMA cameras, even if you can use them for whatever you want, it is intended to be used in a professional cinema workflow), 6K is lighter in post-production and is a good middle ground in term of price to quality ratio.

Plus, Komodo will have a Global Shutter mode so IF you need that for filming action stuff there's that. And don't forget that RED is NOT making it to compete with Z-Cam or Blackmagic or whoever : it's intended to be used as a B or C cam on shoots with bigger REDs (or other brands). And YES, a huge part of the userbase will use the camera as an A-cam... Soderbergh is already doing so after all. But still, RED is not trying to compete with Z-Cam and BM.

The real question to me is more "would you choose Komodo over Dragon-X 5K" ?

 

[Alex Stolpakov]

Plus, Komodo will have a Global Shutter mode so IF you need that for filming action stuff there's that. And don't forget that RED is NOT making it to compete with Z-Cam or Blackmagic or whoever : it's intended to be used as a B or C cam on shoots with bigger REDs (or other brands).

SO how you see it possible, relatively using the same optics like CookeS5. What configuration for the Komodo cage wise YOU recommend. Did you ever put cinema optics with radio focus on something like Sony A7 ?