KOMODO....

[Bastien Tribalat]

SNIP


What lenses would you use on such a 12K camera? It's unrealistic in my opinion. Most lens manufacturers have just released FF lens lineups and there are so few cine lenses for cinema work if you go larger on sensors from FF. Large format still photography is unrealistic for cine work and medium format, which is Hasselblad and 65mm require very expensive and special case lenses.
Better to do a new sensor, Vista Vision with 12K to get 8K distribution. But in my opinion, stick with 8K VV sensor and increase low light quality, DR and framerate cap. Going larger than FF is not a good choice and leads to tons of problems for video work.

A 65mm cine camera would be a great addition and competition towards the Arri 65, but I feel that's more realistic as a special case camera like the Panavision Millenium DXL2 for work related to IMAX releases. Because of difficulty having cine lenses for a 65mm camera, there won't be any realistic normal sales of these cameras, because it can't be scaled up. Full format video is easier because it's already a format that has a lot of lenses out there and the new FF releases of cine lenses are easier to do than going larger.

It's good to not stare blindly into "bigger and more" and think that's a good idea. There has to be a balance. Full format is the perfect balance between lenses and sensor sizes in terms of video. 8K is a perfect balance for 4K releases while 10 to 12K is the perfect balance for 8K releases subsampling.
So having a full format 12K sensor, 19-20 stops of DR, global shutter, 3200 noise free and eye-tracking AF that can feed focus to cine lenses, would be the perfect camera. Aiming higher than that instead of improving other aspects of the camera body and handling is just a waste of resources for something that's a diminishing return of improvements.

Personally I've not seen any actual benefit going higher than 6-8K. Noise handling etc. doesn't just depend on resolution and subsampling. Of course I see the better quality of the Monstro 8K over Komodo, but actual benefits, in my opinion, have to do with striking a balance rather than pure maximized power. Komodo in my opinion strikes a balance. It's not perfect, but close.
An 8K VV global shutter 100 fps capable sensor with face and eye-tracking AF and noise-free 3200 ISO inside a Komodo sized camera body with low latency video monitoring and wireless audio built-in, would, in my opinion, be the perfect cinema camera.

Aim for that, nothing more nothing less and we have a winner. Improving that further would be about keeping the same specs but getting it to be fan-less, low power with whole-day battery use etc.

The Panavision DXL2 is a Monstro 8K sensor (40.96mm wide and 21.6 millimeters tall ), so not at all different in size than the DSMC2 Monstro and Ranger Monstro so I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Furthermore, nowadays, cameras don't need to have a 65mm sensor to be approved for Digital Imax Capture as the Sony Venice was approved a few months ago and has a sensor smaller than Monstro (36mmx24mm).
As for lenses, the following cover the Alexa65 sensor so a 54.12 mm x 25.58 mm image area :

And I'm pretty sure that Panavision has a bunch of lenses made for 65/70mm film cameras that would also work so lenses seems to not be an issue. (plus : on an RF mount you can adapt Hasselblad's primes with no problem at all)

EDIT : and at least every Christopher Nolan movie with shots shot on actual Imax cameras used Hasselblad lenses at some point so I think it's a testament to the fact that it's doable.

My point is : why IF that was an actual possible roadmap wouldn't we want RED to go in that direction. We already know that 8K is happening. Not everywhere yes, not tomorrow and certainly not in my home for quite some time BUT that doesn't mean that it's not coming faster and as you said, a 12K sensor would be great of 8K distribution (in fact, even 10K would be plenty good for that) and by making the sensor bigger, they can keep the pixel pitch closer to what they have on let's say the Monstro sensor. They are a Digital CINEMA Camera company and more and more high budget movies and TV shows are shot on yes full frame and VistaVision but Alexa 65 also. Even Parasite was shot on it. And is a visual masterpiece (and well worthy of every praise it got IMO).

I agree with what you're saying nonetheless about DR and noise. Those parameters are a priority to me BUT right now we're already at a level that exceeds what can be shown even on (current) Dolby Vision equippement so I'm not sure DR improvement is as critical as it was 10 years ago. It would be nice, yes, but doesn't seem as critical right now.

As for autofocus, YES it is awesome BUT I don't think it will ever be as primordial for cinema production because I strongly believe that we will always need the human touch and feel on focus pulling. Even the errors are artisticaly important. I mean the scene in Joker where he dances in the toilets was almost improvised and it works and a technical and artistic stand point because focus was pulled by a human trying to keep up with an actor and DP who were improvising the scene.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

[...]

Personally I've not seen any actual benefit going higher than 6-8K. [...]

I haven't either, but only because I haven't been able to go higher than 8K.

I will say this: there is much to be said for framing a little bit wide and having the freedom to punch in up to 2x-3x when need be. There is also something to be said against framing too wide and believing that a 4x punch-in gives you the freedom to get multiple MCUs from a single master (wide) shot, especially when those MCUs are at opposite edges of the wide shot. I have really, really appreciated shooting 8K resolution masked down to 7K or sometimes 6K in the viewfinder and being able to recompose shots as I edit, just as I have cursed myself for doing too good a job filling an 8K frame and not really being able to reframe as a result. If I had 12K, I'd mask that down to 10K for composition and be very happy that there's a very solid 4K image anywhere within the 6K center of that frame.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The Panavision DXL2 is a Monstro 8K sensor (40.96mm wide and 21.6 millimeters tall ), so not at all different in size than the DSMC2 Monstro and Ranger Monstro so I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Furthermore, nowadays, cameras don't need to have a 65mm sensor to be approved for Digital Imax Capture as the Sony Venice was approved a few months ago and has a sensor smaller than Monstro (36mmx24mm).

"Special case camera" means a camera that you only rent, you can't own. It's very hard to scale production of a camera that together with 65mm lenses becomes so expensive that there's no realistic point for anyone to own it without having a large rental business surrounding it. The focus here is to "own yourself". As long as someone isn't a billionaire that could easily spend whatever they want on camera tech, it becomes a pretty unrealistic camera to produce, except as a special case camera. Both Arri 65 and the Panavision DXL2 are rental only and that's where a 65mm Red camera would fit in.

And I'm pretty sure that Panavision has a bunch of lenses made for 65/70mm film cameras that would also work so lenses seems to not be an issue. (plus : on an RF mount you can adapt Hasselblad's primes with no problem at all)

EDIT : and at least every Christopher Nolan movie with shots shot on actual Imax cameras used Hasselblad lenses at some point so I think it's a testament to the fact that it's doable.

Doable is not the same as practical or good business. Christopher Nolan produces the largest type of movies you can imagine, budget-wise. And that is my point, you fit the camera to where the market is and I don't believe there's enough of a market for these types of super expensive 65mm solutions, except in those cases like these large budget productions, which rent equipment because anything else is really just a waste of money.

My point is : why IF that was an actual possible roadmap wouldn't we want RED to go in that direction. We already know that 8K is happening. Not everywhere yes, not tomorrow and certainly not in my home for quite some time BUT that doesn't mean that it's not coming faster and as you said, a 12K sensor would be great of 8K distribution (in fact, even 10K would be plenty good for that) and by making the sensor bigger, they can keep the pixel pitch closer to what they have on let's say the Monstro sensor. They are a Digital CINEMA Camera company and more and more high budget movies and TV shows are shot on yes full frame and VistaVision but Alexa 65 also. Even Parasite was shot on it. And is a visual masterpiece (and well worthy of every praise it got IMO).

Again, I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I'm not saying there isn't room for Red to compete with Alexa 65 and getting a 12K. I'm pointing out the maximum type of camera before it becomes irrelevant to max out even more. Where diminishing returns of image quality and sensor sizes runs out of reasons to grow bigger and "more". A 12K 65mm Red would be maximizing this and it would be a very special case camera. Very few would need it and renting it would be far more reasonable for when those projects arise. Remember, you would need a fully functioning post-infrastructure to also handle all that data. Your examples are productions where they rent those cameras, therefore, a Red 65mm camera makes more sense as a rent only, just like Arri 65 and the Panavision. You can't buy those cameras for yourself.

So when I speak of a "perfect camera", I speak of one that is ownable. Something that is reasonable to buy and own. A perfect camera for large budget production is one thing, a perfect camera to own without being a billionaire is another.

As for autofocus, YES it is awesome BUT I don't think it will ever be as primordial for cinema production because I strongly believe that we will always need the human touch and feel on focus pulling. Even the errors are artisticaly important. I mean the scene in Joker where he dances in the toilets was almost improvised and it works and a technical and artistic stand point because focus was pulled by a human trying to keep up with an actor and DP who were improvising the scene.

When the technology is there, when we have the high-performance cine lenses having internal focus motors and face/eye-tracking software locking focus in a scene, the industry will change. Of course, there are artistic reasons behind pulling focus manually. But there's been many artistic things that have disappeared over the course of technology evolving.

Most of the time, focus in a scene is pretty basic: lock onto that person's face. And the ability to shoot wide open and hit the focus in every take of a scene so that there's never that loss of good performance just because the focus puller didn't hit the mark, those problems are gone. And with internal motors, special software for autofocus in cine applications could incorporate a play area for a focus puller to remotely work in tandem with the autofocus; letting the autofocus hold a lock on minor pulls while the focus puller pulls the larger racks.

Because no one has made this into reality, there are no people to report how much it solved problems and challenges during a shoot. The potential that a cine-based AF system would bring to the filmmaking world is through the roof and seriously ignored.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

"Special case camera" means a camera that you only rent, you can't own. It's very hard to scale production of a camera that together with 65mm lenses becomes so expensive that there's no realistic point for anyone to own it without having a large rental business surrounding it. The focus here is to "own yourself". As long as someone isn't a billionaire that could easily spend whatever they want on camera tech, it becomes a pretty unrealistic camera to produce, except as a special case camera. Both Arri 65 and the Panavision DXL2 are rental only and that's where a 65mm Red camera would fit in.

Over 100 years ago, the magazine "Puck" carried the quotation Things move along so rapidly nowadays that people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.

Blackmagic has already thrown down a 12k camera. Tokina Vista Primes have the coverage needed (granted, circle of illumination is not the circle of definition).

Red Komodo has scaled cost down 4x from where it was 4-5 years ago...which means that a camera with 4x the pixels should be in reach of what people spend on DRAGON back in the day. Please don't tell us you don't want it because it cannot be done. Let's see what can be done, and then say whether we really want it or not!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Over 100 years ago, the magazine "Puck" carried the quotation Things move along so rapidly nowadays that people saying: “It can’t be done,” are always being interrupted by somebody doing it.

Blackmagic has already thrown down a 12k camera. Tokina Vista Primes have the coverage needed (granted, circle of illumination is not the circle of definition).

Red Komodo has scaled cost down 4x from where it was 4-5 years ago...which means that a camera with 4x the pixels should be in reach of what people spend on DRAGON back in the day. Please don't tell us you don't want it because it cannot be done. Let's see what can be done, and then say whether we really want it or not!

Of course, but the key here is the things that have physical limit or challenges. Vista Vision is in my opinion both maximized in what the tech cost and what the performance is. Focus pullers are already struggling with wide open FF lenses, so scaling from s35mm to Vista Vision is not the same as the jump from Vista Vision to 65mm/medium format. The challenges and problems that 65mm produces require a scale-up in other areas that is pretty impractical for anything but the largest productions. So even if things move forward fast, doesn't mean it's reasonable to use it, either through cost or performance.

65mm will be a niche system for a very long time, not because of cost but performance and complexity of shooting with it. Vista Vision as a sensor size format is really the max size that is reasonable to "own". And 12K, in my opinion, is the max resolution to reasonably shoot in. Remember that as long as CGI and real-time graphics/game engines drive resolution distribution together with streaming bandwidth, we won't see 8K for a long time as a wide adopted format. 8K TVs right now are useless because we don't have any 8K things to watch. 4K adoption didn't take off before game consoles started supporting 4K, but that also meant the games actually were in 4K. But the new PS5 and XBOX, while supporting 8K output, won't have any games that pull 8K resolution off. Previous console mid-updates like the PS4 Pro enabled 4K in every game that was released. That won't happen with PS5 or XBOX, developers aren't forced to support 8K resolution, so there won't be any high-end games going above 4K.

As long as 4K is the standard in console gaming, whatever TV manufacturers say, there won't be a jump to 8K broadcast or movies. Combine that with CGI work still working in sub-4K resolutions. The jump into 4K in the gaming world was a huge hit towards the progression of other technologies like RTX raytracing, it set back the performance a lot in order to support 4K. So the gaming industry won't jump to 8K anytime soon when they are trying to catch up to pure 4K with high end rendering in other areas.

Bottom line, 8K will not be a "thing" anytime soon because the driving force to adopt it does not happen at acquisition or TV manufacturing, it happens at the CGI and game engine level. That's where the consumer adoption happen and it will be at least 10 years before we'll see wide adoption in the gaming industry.

 

[rand thompson]

RED Komodo low light comparison to RED Dragon X


By brendan monteiro

 

[Nick Morrison]

Not saying that the AF is a joke, I'm saying that without a proper face-tracking feature it will not be reliable for most types of AF related work. You can't have something looking for focus in the middle of a take or while doing gimbal work. So the AF system will be unused by most people until it has software that can hold that focus onto objects that are important in the scene.
The Canon or Sony AF system in video is nothing without their face-tracking and eye-tracking component.

The AF system should not be included as a key feature need when considering buying Komodo. Only what is present in the camera at the moment is what you should focus on, not promises of tomorrow because they might not happen. We might never get a software update that enables face-tracking, because we don't know if the processor can handle that or not.

So the important thing for Red is to at least "make room" for processing power to handle such a software, or else the AF system will just be unused in most cases. The potential of AF only occurs when we can shoot scenes wide open hand-held of an actor and the focus is rock solid on their face or eye. This is the whole reason why many don't get cine cameras and instead Canon or Sony DSLRs for their video work. A Red camera with similar AF function, even basic face-tracking in comparison, would really change the game for many shooters. So, in my opinion, either go all in and do AF with face-tracking or focus on other improvements of the camera instead.




What lenses would you use on such a 12K camera? It's unrealistic in my opinion. Most lens manufacturers have just released FF lens lineups and there are so few cine lenses for cinema work if you go larger on sensors from FF. Large format still photography is unrealistic for cine work and medium format, which is Hasselblad and 65mm require very expensive and special case lenses.
Better to do a new sensor, Vista Vision with 12K to get 8K distribution. But in my opinion, stick with 8K VV sensor and increase low light quality, DR and framerate cap. Going larger than FF is not a good choice and leads to tons of problems for video work.

A 65mm cine camera would be a great addition and competition towards the Arri 65, but I feel that's more realistic as a special case camera like the Panavision Millenium DXL2 for work related to IMAX releases. Because of difficulty having cine lenses for a 65mm camera, there won't be any realistic normal sales of these cameras, because it can't be scaled up. Full format video is easier because it's already a format that has a lot of lenses out there and the new FF releases of cine lenses are easier to do than going larger.

It's good to not stare blindly into "bigger and more" and think that's a good idea. There has to be a balance. Full format is the perfect balance between lenses and sensor sizes in terms of video. 8K is a perfect balance for 4K releases while 10 to 12K is the perfect balance for 8K releases subsampling.
So having a full format 12K sensor, 19-20 stops of DR, global shutter, 3200 noise free and eye-tracking AF that can feed focus to cine lenses, would be the perfect camera. Aiming higher than that instead of improving other aspects of the camera body and handling is just a waste of resources for something that's a diminishing return of improvements.

Personally I've not seen any actual benefit going higher than 6-8K. Noise handling etc. doesn't just depend on resolution and subsampling. Of course I see the better quality of the Monstro 8K over Komodo, but actual benefits, in my opinion, have to do with striking a balance rather than pure maximized power. Komodo in my opinion strikes a balance. It's not perfect, but close.
An 8K VV global shutter 100 fps capable sensor with face and eye-tracking AF and noise-free 3200 ISO inside a Komodo sized camera body with low latency video monitoring and wireless audio built-in, would, in my opinion, be the perfect cinema camera.

Aim for that, nothing more nothing less and we have a winner. Improving that further would be about keeping the same specs but getting it to be fan-less, low power with whole-day battery use etc.

Christopher your concerns all make sense.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet the following:

RED releases at least TWO DSCM3 cameras with a larger Komodo Sensor.


One is perhaps $20K, and is an 8K Vista Vision sensor (36mm wide, as opposed to Monstro's 41mm wide).

This is for a general audience, and is everything you want (me included).


And then another camera (that competes with Alexa 65, is what Panavision uses inside DLX3, etc) that's $50K and has a 12K Hassebad Sized sensor that can WINDOW down to 10K (45mm wide, which the Tokina's for example should cover) and of course 8K and below.


That's my guess. Two cameras for two markets.

Because as you say, not everyone needs a 12K Hasselbad Cinema camera.

 

[Alain M]

RED Komodo low light comparison to RED Dragon X


By brendan monteiro

Very Impressive!!!

 

[Alain M]

I am very excited about the follow-up on RED Komodo innovation with the later DSCM3, particularly FPS speed, Dual Recording Resolution options, and LOW Light...

SSD are 500 Mbps speed on DSCM 2, but now we have available the latest (nvme m.2 ) SSD Technology that run at up to 3000+ Mpbs range which makes me think that DSCM3 will pop some huge FPS & Resolution and DUAL Resolution (RAW+ProRes) surprises in 2021-2022 whenever Jarred and the RED team are ready for it!!!

I am ready and I love it!

 

[rand thompson]

Alain,

Especially when you consider that the Dragon-X is about $9000 more for the Brain only at $14,950 in comparson to the Komodo at $6000 for the brain before the $1000 Hydrogen discount for some.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Christopher your concerns all make sense.

If I was a betting man, I'd bet the following:

RED releases at least TWO DSCM3 cameras with a larger Komodo Sensor.


One is perhaps $20K, and is an 8K Vista Vision sensor (36mm wide, as opposed to Monstro's 41mm wide).

This is for a general audience, and is everything you want (me included).


And then another camera (that competes with Alexa 65, is what Panavision uses inside DLX3, etc) that's $50K and has a 12K Hassebad Sized sensor that can WINDOW down to 10K (45mm wide, which the Tokina's for example should cover) and of course 8K and below.


That's my guess. Two cameras for two markets.

Because as you say, not everyone needs a 12K Hasselbad Cinema camera.

I agree, but I think they will release three new cameras and maybe some special model like Rangers, which in my opinion makes sense out of what filmmakers need.

1. DSMC3 small body s35mm 8K sensor. An upgraded Helium sensor with better framerates and low light.
2. DSMC3 small body Vista Vision 8K sensor. An upgraded Monstro sensor with better framerates and low light.
3. DSMC3 small body 65mm 12K sensor. A new sensor to compete with Arri 65mm.
4. DSMC3 Ranger model version of the above three.
5. Panavision Millenium DXL3 65mm based on the 12K sensor.

65mm models will be only a few manufactured, only sold to larger rental companies around the world.
Primary models for s35mm and Vista Vision will be their two new primary models. Komodo will be the crash cam part of the Red DMSC3 lineup.
Future update to Komodo will probably be a slightly larger sensor (like Dragon 6K) with Gemini style approach (low light is more worth it on the Komodo line).

I think all this would be the only real way to compete now that Arri has its Mini LF and the Arri 65 gets into more and more productions, and BM has its 12K sensor.

DSMC3 needs to be lighter in built quality and more flexible than before. I don't think Komodo will be a blueprint for its camera design, but I do think it will hint at what the DSMC3 lineup will feature. Like wireless video, probably wireless audio in, AF, built in screen for a rudamentary view, new media solution etc.

Personally, I would actually love to see Red design their own lineup of lenses once again. This time, base it on a still lens baseline, like the Sigma ART series. But rehouse them to feature a high quality remote focus internal motor. We have yet to see these types of lenses made by any lens manufacturer, but it makes total sense to have a non-manual type cine-lens that works with AF and remote focusing and isn't the crap that still lenses are on this front.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I agree, but I think they will release three new cameras and maybe some special model like Rangers, which in my opinion makes sense out of what filmmakers need.

1. DSMC3 small body s35mm 8K sensor. An upgraded Helium sensor with better framerates and low light.
2. DSMC3 small body Vista Vision 8K sensor. An upgraded Monstro sensor with better framerates and low light.
3. DSMC3 small body 65mm 12K sensor. A new sensor to compete with Arri 65mm.
4. DSMC3 Ranger model version of the above three.
5. Panavision Millenium DXL3 65mm based on the 12K sensor.

I agree with most of this, but not new 8K Helium. I think they are staying with the Komodo pixel pitch. So that would be:

6K Komodo S35+ (what we have now)
8K Komodo Vista Vision (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)
12K Komodo IMAX (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)

Obviously, just a guess.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I agree with most of this, but not new 8K Helium. I think they are staying with the Komodo pixel pitch. So that would be:

6K Komodo S35+ (what we have now)
8K Komodo Vista Vision (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)
12K Komodo IMAX (two Bodies - One Modular, One Ranger)

Obviously, just a guess.

Helium is too popular among many productions that I think it will still exist a s35mm 8K solution. And 8K is probably the minimum Red will go, Komodo is a compromise because of the tech they crammed into it. We will see an 8K Komodo when the time is ready.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

not sure who these cameras are for...

that said, if regulations change on set and they might have to shoot a lot more chroma or plate shots, but the also the post-prodution technology for VFX is dramatically changing too... have to wonder what camera requirement we'll need.

 

[Andreas Eymannsberger]

Of course, but the key here is the things that have physical limit or challenges. Vista Vision is in my opinion both maximized in what the tech cost and what the performance is. Focus pullers are already struggling with wide open FF lenses, so scaling from s35mm to Vista Vision is not the same as the jump from Vista Vision to 65mm/medium format. The challenges and problems that 65mm produces require a scale-up in other areas that is pretty impractical for anything but the largest productions. So even if things move forward fast, doesn't mean it's reasonable to use it, either through cost or performance.

Good point mentioning focus. This has already become if not an issue at least a special consideration scaling up formats and resolutions. At least from a stills photography standpoint 35x24mm has become the most used format at some point from it's origin because it offered the best package between camera size, lens size, lens speed and usability. Regarding focus pulls for motion images the same applied for 35mm (2-3-4-perf) probably with the problem inherent to film (vs. digital) of vertical transport and horizontal transport or an exponentially larger gate size bringing different problems.

Now that film is gone larger format (around 24mm height) capture has become increasingly accessible without the older day problems of horizontal transport or going medium format in photography's terms. The question is, what are the real benefits going forward from there. And I agree with Christoffer, the jump from S35 to VV/35x24 is moderate compared to 65mm and even onwards.

What is similar to film days is that we are now talking about linear increases in resolution vs. what we are having in this format (Alexa 65 at 6K). But the question starts with lenses. Most medium format photography lenses (Hasselblad etc.) actually have inferior resolution compared to high quality because although the theoretical resolution of the film increased linearly the lenses could resolve lower lpm because there wasn't as much resolution (lens-wise) needed because of the larger gate size. The 'problem' was perceived to be at the other end (35mm) at which lenses greatly started to exceed medium format lenses resolution wise.

Regarding digital capture I feel that the thing we call pixel pitch becomes a third figure regarding resolution as it's possible to scale format and resolution more independently than it was with film. I am very aware of the great publications issued by Panavision & Light Iron and what Michael Cioni always states that more resolution resulting in softer instead of sharper images, but from a personal feel I think we already exceeded a point at which we oversample our lenses. This is even more so true for old medium format photography glass, that wasn't even meant to exceed at LPMs.

So what are the actual benefits of going larger than VV/LF? It certainly isn't detail, because if lens and pixel pitch / COC match, we won't get much on this front compared to VV/35x24. We won't get more and more oversampling of lenses because at some point the benfit isn't there anymore either. Putting 18K or 24K on a lens that doesn't resolve 8K won't bring much benefit while there can be some from oversampling a lens that resolves 4K to 8K or 12K. So what are the befits? Aesthetically it become a thing and there are interesitng examples of real large format motion image campture (thinking 4x5, 5x7, 8x10) but that often falls under 'special interest' and might become one tool for the right application rather than an universal aesthetic (which 35mm 2-4perf have become to a certain extent).

On the other side of the equasion the problems increase exponentially. Storage, stabilization (more noticed in photography than in film, but having 36 Mpix plus suddenly rendered the old focal lenght divided by shutter speed times two rule useless because to make actual use of the resolution images needed to become more stabilized), critical focus, size and weight of camera & lenses (look at Alexa 65mm and IMAX, it definitely doesn't suit 98% of productions globally). And I guess all these are points that guide in a certain direction:

It can become a thing. But it won't become the only way going forward. Larger formats will always play a role, despite a tiny one for highly specialized areas. There are so many other factors at play and we have to learn that it often takes more than one breaktrough discovery to make a thing the only thing that's there in the future. Think about electric vehicles. It will not only need breakthroughs in battery technology, but also in power grids providing energy and in the long term in manufacturing technology to make batteries with materials that won't be used up quickly. Until this point it stay's what it is now: A special tool for special situations.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

(look at Alexa 65mm and IMAX, it definitely doesn't suit 98% of productions globally)

I also think there are far too many people just wanting things bigger and "cooler", instead of using the camera that fits the production. If you look at any top tier filmmakers, not one of them chooses the biggest and largest cameras around just for the sake of it. The productions using Arri 65 cameras have a reason for it; the creativity and storytelling of the cinematography dictates the format.

So the question should be if people chose cameras based on the project or based on personal preference. Bottom line is that if you were to own a camera, you would seriously want to own a camera that is in the middle, that is the most balanced camera. Personally I think that Full Format is the best balance, but even the Dragon 6K and Gemini sensor sizes are a really perfect balance because it opens up flexibility with being larger than s35mm but don't introduce the challenges of Full Format 35mm. What you want should be a format that gives you those shallow depth of field options for wide-angle lenses, but still able to pull off deep focus.

Hitting that middle ground of sensors, lenses and resolution is so understated in a time when everyone just wants everything bigger and badder. Sometimes I think people need to stop and ask themselves what they are actually asking or looking for. As mentioned before, there are far too many filmmakers buying cameras to shoot charts at home, not actually having a reason to own something that rivals IMAX delivery specs.

It has to be said again: if people can't create good images with the Komodo, then it might just be a camera that's too much for their level of competence. It won't be better with a Monstro, or with an Arri 65. It will just be more resolution and sensor size to show off that incompetence.

I had a request a while back that we should have a cinematography learning part of this forum. One where people of all levels of competence could really learn from each other how to maximize the Red system. Not in terms of math calculations of DR but real-world production examples of how the system behaves and what option it gives. I remember David Mullen's "ask David Mullen anything" thread to be extremely active back in the early days of Red and it was wonderful to see the exchange of artistic knowledge that came out of that. Right now, there's far too many chart shooters, math calculations, pixel peeping and technobabble that the narrative have changed to be about "having a bigger sensor with more resolution equals you being a better artist".

So when the discussion is about what the next resolution would be, what the next camera should be, it's always about the damn sensor and resolution, never about everything else surrounding a camera system. Komodo, in my opinion, is part of the biggest jumps in camera tech that Red has ever done. First one was going from Red One to Epic body, the next was the Dragon sensor. After that, I don't think that Helium, Monstro, Gemini or even the Komodo sensor is that big of a deal, because the Dragon 6K is still enough for 99% of productions globally. The camera system of Komodo however, the size, the features, those things are a far bigger jump forward than anything else and this is why I always pointed out that Komodo will be the perfect indie-feature camera available. Because if an indie production thinks of using the Alexa 65 or the Monstro 8K for their feature film, especially if the material doesn't fit those looks, it might be because the competence isn't there, just the illusion that the biggest and most powerful system around will magically make the movie better for the big screen, it won't.

 

[rand thompson]

RED KOMODO | CONTINUOUS AUTO FOCUS TEST | SIGMA 50mm 1.4 | Middleburg, Virginia



By rexarrowfilms

Signor Vineyards | Grape Harvest 2020


By Moviesauce

Shot on Red Komodo and Red Helium cameras. DJI Mavic Air 2 for drone shots. Irix 15mm, 45mm, and Sigma 150-600mm lenses.

 

[Christian Jadot]

Not saying that the AF is a joke, I'm saying that without a proper face-tracking feature it will not be reliable for most types of AF related work. You can't have something looking for focus in the middle of a take or while doing gimbal work. So the AF system will be unused by most people until it has software that can hold that focus onto objects that are important in the scene.
The Canon or Sony AF system in video is nothing without their face-tracking and eye-tracking component.

The AF system should not be included as a key feature need when considering buying Komodo. Only what is present in the camera at the moment is what you should focus on, not promises of tomorrow because they might not happen. We might never get a software update that enables face-tracking, because we don't know if the processor can handle that or not.

So the important thing for Red is to at least "make room" for processing power to handle such a software, or else the AF system will just be unused in most cases. The potential of AF only occurs when we can shoot scenes wide open hand-held of an actor and the focus is rock solid on their face or eye. This is the whole reason why many don't get cine cameras and instead Canon or Sony DSLRs for their video work. A Red camera with similar AF function, even basic face-tracking in comparison, would really change the game for many shooters. So, in my opinion, either go all in and do AF with face-tracking or focus on other improvements of the camera instead.

I totally disagree here. It is not just the AF, but the AF+WiFi. I would take Continued AF plus the WiFi controls over face tracking 9 out of 10 times. (All 3 would be the best of all worlds.)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I totally disagree here. It is not just the AF, but the AF+WiFi. I would take Continued AF plus the WiFi controls over face tracking 9 out of 10 times. (All 3 would be the best of all worlds.)

It's not one or the other here, not sure why you put them in opposition towards each other. Face/eye-tracking doesn't cancel out the ability to WiFi control the AF so I don't see your point.
WiFi controlled still lenses with remote focus is also really bad due to the motors in the still lenses. They are not even close to the smoothness of cine lenses.

 

[Jay Slater]

Alain,

Especially when you consider that the Dragon-X is about $9000 more for the Brain only at $14,950 in comparson to the Komodo at $6000 for the brain before the $1000 Hydrogen discount for some.

trying to keep track of this thread, but almost 600 pages in - has there been any update on the Hydrogen Discount/front of line for the production models yet? Really hoping I haven't missed this!