Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

KOMODO....

Christoffer Glans said:
True, mixed them up, but still, 6K LF is not to mess with.
Click to expand...

Yes, BUT right now, and it's just MY personal opinion (and please aknowledge it is based on the promise of Komodo) : I would rather have the (slightly bigger-ish) s35 Global Shutter 6K sensor, Red's color science and Redcode Raw than the Mavo LF. And I am NOT saying Mavo LF isn't good at all (I actually think it is the closest to an affordable Alexa-ish camera) ;-)

(obviously, if it appears that Komodo isn't keeping up with what I believe it will be, no hard feeling I just won't buy one and go to whatever is the other products that fits my needs, taste and budget)
 
Christoffer Glans said:
True, mixed them up, but still, 6K LF is not to mess with.
Click to expand...

I only wish the Komodo was LF. This is a very important feature for me (as I am a stills shooter and know the format very well) and so is the vari-nd, and you cant have both with the Komodo/ speedbooster.
I will end up probably end up purchasing either the Mavo LF or Z-cam F6 not because they are perfect cameras (they definitely aren't) , but because they are the only LF options in this price range.

Paul
 
Last edited:
For me Recode workflow, Red color science and image quality, and especially GLOBAL SHUTTER with Komodo outweigh the features of any of the competition in this price range currently.
 
Unlike almost everyone here, I want the smallest sensor I can get that delivers pro level image quality. Right now Micro 4/3 is the biggest sensor I want to use going forward.

That doesn't mean I won't use bigger sensors, but right now, you can't go smaller than Micro 4/3 and get image quality that I would be happy with. Eventually? Maybe. I want a Sony RX100 that give me S35 image quality. It won't happen tomorrow but it might happen - or, indeed, it may never happen.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Unlike almost everyone here, I want the smallest sensor I can get that delivers pro level image quality. Right now Micro 4/3 is the biggest sensor I want to use going forward.

That doesn't mean I won't use bigger sensors, but right now, you can't go smaller than Micro 4/3 and get image quality that I would be happy with. Eventually? Maybe. I want a Sony RX100 that give me S35 image quality. It won't happen tomorrow but it might happen - or, indeed, it may never happen.
Click to expand...

That is indeed surprising to here from you Karim, considering your love for Leica too.

I'm a format fanatic and mainly my world has always been:
- S35
- VV
- 15-perf 70mm
- 5-perf 65mm
- S16

More or less quantity in that order, though with the RED VV format that's probably taken the fair lead these days.

All formats have a place really and yes they do have an impact as well as their own strengths and weaknesses. Despite much of what has been written to the contrary for whatever reason.

I personally don't like much smaller than S35, but S16 really works for so many applications. MFT sort of in that middle ground.

I personally would like to see some sort of S16 4K/4K+ solution. Back when I was a Helium owner I did explore 4K and 3.5K w/ some S16 glass briefly and that held some interesting potential, similarly with Monstro and Dragon at 2K and 2.5K (lens image circle works).

That had a nice feeling about it, but nothing in my world gets delivered under 4K for many years now, so there's that.

Looking at a couple cameras on the horizon however, I think there might be a moderate resurgence in S16 coming around the bend.
 
Samir Patel said:
Phil, I've been thinking of shooting my helium with some s16 or 16mm glass. Any particular lenses I should consider?
Click to expand...

Aaron Lochert said:
Seconding this. Having owned Helium for 3 years now this is still something I've never explored.
Click to expand...

Heh. One day I should write a book on glass. In this case I would aim at films you've enjoyed that were shot on Super 16mm.

I have my favorites and there's occasionally a hell of a deal on stuff like Arri Ultra 16 primes, which if another set pops up I might grab. The look they got off of 28 Weeks Later always stuck with me and the prints really looked great.

Highly underrated optics in the Illuminas as well, though mechanics could be better.

My real reason for not investing much in S16 glass really has to do with no 4K solutions, though Helium presents the most potential currently for this. I'd shoot it a bit more like film, lower ISO, a bit more careful overall. I'm sure I have the test footage I shot back then somewhere, but I was working at ISO 250-500 a bunch.
 
David Rasberry said:
For me Recode workflow, Red color science and image quality, and especially GLOBAL SHUTTER with Komodo outweigh the features of any of the competition in this price range currently.
Click to expand...


interesting that you are talking about the quality of the image that no one has seen yet :) Mavo LF have very good image quality, it's FF, have nice color science and incredible ISO performance, and resolution up to 6016×3984. Moreover you have exchangeable lens mounts and you can record your footage directly on 2,5'' SSD. The weaknesses of Mavo LF is dynamic range and rolling shutter.

When it comes to Komodo, I'm curious about two very important things: price and dynamic range. If komodo have clearly better DR than cameras such as Mavo LF, Ursa Mini Pro or Canon C200 then I think it well be real RED camera, if not... it will be only a mid-range camera with a lot of competition.
 
Tomasz Nizielski said:
interesting that you are talking about the quality of the image that no one has seen yet :) Mavo LF have very good image quality, it's FF, have nice color science and incredible ISO performance, and resolution up to 6016×3984. Moreover you have exchangeable lens mounts and you can record your footage directly on 2,5'' SSD. The weaknesses of Mavo LF is dynamic range and rolling shutter.

When it comes to Komodo, I'm curious about two very important things: price and dynamic range. If komodo have clearly better DR than cameras such as Mavo LF, Ursa Mini Pro or Canon C200 then I think it well be real RED camera, if not... it will be only a mid-range camera with a lot of competition.
Click to expand...

It has been hinted by Jarred that Komodo will have DR close to the DR of Helium. And that there's virtually no loss in DR when you go from rolling shutter mode to global shutter mode to the point that they were thinking of NOT putting the rolling shutter mode.
 
Bastien Tribalat said:
It has been hinted by Jarred that Komodo will have DR close to the DR of Helium. And that there's virtually no loss in DR when you go from rolling shutter mode to global shutter mode to the point that they were thinking of NOT putting the rolling shutter mode.
Click to expand...

the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
 
Tomasz Nizielski said:
the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
Click to expand...

I think that close means at least 14 stops of usable DR. IF Helium is listed at 16.5, then close could mean 16 stops or 15 stops, but I think that for an unbiased approach, 14 stops is the realistic DR. Which still means that it's enough to get a highlight roll-off that's usable.
 
Tomasz Nizielski said:
the question is what does "close" mean, I hope it will be closer to Helium than Ursa or C200.
Click to expand...

"Close" was quantified in a later post.

Jarred Land said:
Yes as we sit, Komodo dynamic range is within half a stop of Helium in both Rolling shutter and Global shutter modes.
Click to expand...

Based on this, the assumption would be that it'd be listed somewhere around 15.5-16 and, depending on testing methodology, end up around 14.5-15 useable stops. Ursa 4.6K and the C200 are in the 12.5-13 range, so it does seem that it's closer to Helium than those.
 
Luke Marcus Rosen said:
Considering photographic film has 13 stops, anything over is considered a godsend in my book...
Click to expand...

Hard to measure film really, since it's a chemical process without any hard cuts to DR range. Everything rolls off physically while for digital everything needs to replicate the physical. Film might have 13 stops in one measurement, but when working with the image there's more to it than just strict stops of DR. This is why it's so hard to just compare film to digital. Digital needs to go way higher in DR in order to actually replicate the dynamic and organic look of film. Just like resolution needs to go to 8K or above in order to replicate physical "resolution" past pixel counts.

Somewhere down the line we will have a 100 megapixel 25 stops of DR camera before we get something else than pixels in digital form. And then no one will ever look at film again.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
Hard to measure film really, since it's a chemical process without any hard cuts to DR range. Everything rolls off physically while for digital everything needs to replicate the physical. Film might have 13 stops in one measurement, but when working with the image there's more to it than just strict stops of DR. This is why it's so hard to just compare film to digital. Digital needs to go way higher in DR in order to actually replicate the dynamic and organic look of film. Just like resolution needs to go to 8K or above in order to replicate physical "resolution" past pixel counts.

Somewhere down the line we will have a 100 megapixel 25 stops of DR camera before we get something else than pixels in digital form. And then no one will ever look at film again.
Click to expand...

Not to veer OT too much, and these may be very easy-to-answer questions, but I'm very much in the dark on the technical side of film and video.

1.) Have there been cases where people haven't tried to replicate the physical (using film as the standard)?

2.) From the explanations I've seen online, a sensor's photosites are an array of squares. I'm just wondering if circular, overlapping photosites have been tried (if even possible)? I'm looking at wallpaper right now that looks like a bunch of Venn diagrams - maybe that would be a way of moving away from blocky pixels?
 
BrendanLeahy said:
Not to veer OT too much, and these may be very easy-to-answer questions, but I'm very much in the dark on the technical side of film and video.

1.) Have there been cases where people haven't tried to replicate the physical (using film as the standard)?

2.) From the explanations I've seen online, a sensor's photosites are an array of squares. I'm just wondering if circular, overlapping photosites have been tried (if even possible)? I'm looking at wallpaper right now that looks like a bunch of Venn diagrams - maybe that would be a way of moving away from blocky pixels?
Click to expand...

Square pixels provide the greatest area of light exposure without black space between pixels. Smoothing is done by properly matched optical low pass filters that act to blur the shape of the pixels and smooth edges. Higher resolution plus OLPF produces smooth organic looking images.
Current top line digital cameras significantly outperform film in most meaningful respects, but the aesthetic response is more like reversal film than negative film. Digital can emulate film aesthetics pretty well, but there are also possibilities for a far greater range of aesthetic choices to pursue as its own distinct medium.
 
Karim D. Ghantous said:
Unlike almost everyone here, I want the smallest sensor I can get that delivers pro level image quality. Right now Micro 4/3 is the biggest sensor I want to use going forward.

That doesn't mean I won't use bigger sensors, but right now, you can't go smaller than Micro 4/3 and get image quality that I would be happy with. Eventually? Maybe. I want a Sony RX100 that give me S35 image quality. It won't happen tomorrow but it might happen - or, indeed, it may never happen.
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't be content cropping down to ~5k/~m43 or ~4k/~s16?

When it comes to sensors, I really don't understand why RED doesn't make their active areas a DCI compatible 16:9 like BMD (as in, 6144x3456 rather than 6144x3240)? It's just seems dumb going through all the effort of making it a custom 1.9:1, when I'm sure most shoots end up as 16:9 delivery and no one would ever complain about the additional ~7% height/vertical res/downsample.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top