KOMODO....

[David Rasberry]

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.

S16mm/1" video sized format is a favorite of mine. Looks like Komodo will cover that at 2.5K- 3k horizontal resolution depending on lens.

 

[Luke Marcus Rosen]

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.

If we were going to get technical I'd suggest we call up Ansel Adams and Fred Archer to provide their explanation of the zone system which accounts for 11 stops of exposure range. Not 13. Of course, as technology progresses this system becomes more obscure... I shoot film for a living. Physical film. Not trying to compare as it's like trying to have a comparison between acrylic and oil. Two different mediums. And I respectfully, totally, disagree with your "no one will ever look at film again." It's the user's call to utilize the medium of their choice; not technology. Just like you order the drink of your choice at the bar, not the bartender.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

If we were going to get technical I'd suggest we call up Ansel Adams and Fred Archer to provide their explanation of the zone system which accounts for 11 stops of exposure range. Not 13. Of course, as technology progresses this system becomes more obscure... I shoot film for a living. Physical film. Not trying to compare as it's like trying to have a comparison between acrylic and oil. Two different mediums. And I respectfully, totally, disagree with your "no one will ever look at film again." It's the user's call to utilize the medium of their choice; not technology. Just like you order the drink of your choice at the bar, not the bartender.

What I mean is that when digital no longer has any cons and it's so dense as a "negative" that you can simulate whatever you want with it, we will reach a point where it's impossible to distinguish between film and digital. As it is now, it's somewhat there, but not quite. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about tomorrows technology. It's the same discussion as with realtime graphics reaching a point of photorealism in which we cannot see the difference between real and realtime CGI. There will come a time of this and anyone who thinks we won't is not really facing reality of where we are heading. This discussion is a far bigger philosophy discussion than just about film vs digital.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

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

Looking at a couple cameras on the horizon however, I think there might be a moderate resurgence in S16 coming around the bend.

The discussion for me has lots of nuances... but surface area matters more for film than it does for digital, as far as I know, and as far as I can tell. Monstro is superior to the Alexa 65 (and of course the LF) in pretty much every way I can think of, but it's smaller. That's because surface area matters less. Does anything exist that can beat Monstro?

But, with film you can go either extreme and get beautiful images. 65mm? Beautiful. 8mm? Beautiful. With digital, once you get too small, you get shitty images. I do not own a GoPro and I never will. And, even the cheap film stocks look good, whereas the worst sensors you can buy today (e.g. Canon) are a bit iffy, depending how you use them.

So, I could easily see myself owning an E-M1 III as well as an M7 or M-A, and even an M10M. I mean, if you want ultimate quality, you have to go with a Fuji GFX or Phase One. The Sony A7rIV cannot match the latter two, at least not in single shot mode. It's still awesome though. So much to consider!

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.

I agree with all of that. If we do get 25 stops from a sensor, and if the results match the specification... then yes, I have to admit, film can retire.

 

[Luke Marcus Rosen]

What I mean is that when digital no longer has any cons and it's so dense as a "negative" that you can simulate whatever you want with it, we will reach a point where it's impossible to distinguish between film and digital. As it is now, it's somewhat there, but not quite. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about tomorrows technology. It's the same discussion as with realtime graphics reaching a point of photorealism in which we cannot see the difference between real and realtime CGI. There will come a time of this and anyone who thinks we won't is not really facing reality of where we are heading. This discussion is a far bigger philosophy discussion than just about film vs digital.

Christoffer perhaps this is best saved for a conversation elsewhere... but until 1's and 0's can become the same physical process of exposing silver halide crystal to light, I cannot proceed with your discussion. Your argument makes perfect sense to me, but the process of exposure... the PHYSICAL process in imaging is vastly different. 1's and 0's can now do a far better job at imaging than grain in film itself. I know this. You know this. The visual difference in exactitude is indistinguishable. We can agree. I know what you are talking about, but come at this from a different perspective than yours. Harnessing and focusing light to burn an impression on celluloid is the process of yesterday, sure, but a process I cling to nonetheless (despite owning Scarlet-W and soon a Komodo) -- so please let's not discuss where we're headed in the future as if we have a crystal ball... there will be room for both/all!! I like digital. But I also like film far more. It is the grandfather of modern imaging and there is a difference and there is a reason to paint on one canvas over the other. Just like there's a reason for you to choose the Gemini over the Dragon-x.

Think about it another way: the look I can get from a subject looking into the lens of a twin lens reflex is a whole lot different than if they were looking into just another mass-market DSLR. The approach to crafting the image is entirely unique to the canvas you paint on, the painter, the brush... the chemistry involved in the interaction between subject and lens is a whole lot different when you shoot on a bolex versus a red, not to mention the approach. Neither is bad and neither is the future, it is all in choice my friend...

 

[David Rasberry]

If we were going to get technical I'd suggest we call up Ansel Adams and Fred Archer to provide their explanation of the zone system which accounts for 11 stops of exposure range. Not 13. Of course, as technology progresses this system becomes more obscure... I shoot film for a living. Physical film. Not trying to compare as it's like trying to have a comparison between acrylic and oil. Two different mediums. And I respectfully, totally, disagree with your "no one will ever look at film again." It's the user's call to utilize the medium of their choice; not technology. Just like you order the drink of your choice at the bar, not the bartender.

The zone system is just as useful for digital as it was for film. While the eye can sense a broader dynamic range, the brain presents us with an image that is roughly seven to ten stops at any given moment. Less in high contrast direct daylight conditions, more in shade and low light conditions.
The zone system is technology agnostic. It is a method of visually interpreting the values of the original scene in any photographic medium.
The waveform monitor we use as a measurement tool represents a gamma corrected 10 stop value scale distributed over the photometric range of a defined display color space.

At both ends, electronic sensor and electronic display, what we capture and see are analog values of light. The digital part is nothing but a numeric scale representation of analog voltage values that is useful for storage and manipulation.

 

[David Rasberry]

The discussion for me has lots of nuances... but surface area matters more for film than it does for digital, as far as I know, and as far as I can tell. Monstro is superior to the Alexa 65 (and of course the LF) in pretty much every way I can think of, but it's smaller. That's because surface area matters less.

You only have to look at the images coming out of the latest iPhones to know the truth of this statement.

 

[Trevor Meier]

We haven’t had any 2AM bean-spills in awhile... what else ya got cookin back there Jarred?

 

[James Winegar]

Jarred do you anticipate a “have your credit cards ready xday at xpm it’s going to be big” type announcement or should I continue to check all of the Komodo feeds every hour? Working on set away from my phone is getting stressful. Not to mention my wife doesn’t get it... and I don’t blame her... hoping to grab a storm trooper. White is cool but it’s more for a project we are waiting to shoot until it comes out.

 

[Dylan Odom]

If someone could buy me one and donate it to me that would be fantastic.

 

[Gavin.Benjamin]

I just wanted to know if
1: all pre-oders will be taken the same time but if you had bought a hydrogen you will get the discount
2: or will there be a advance order for hydrogen

 

[Nick Morrison]

The discussion for me has lots of nuances... but surface area matters more for film than it does for digital, as far as I know, and as far as I can tell. Monstro is superior to the Alexa 65 (and of course the LF) in pretty much every way I can think of, but it's smaller. That's because surface area matters less. Does anything exist that can beat Monstro?

Monstro is amazing, but I don't know if many people will agree it's superior to Alexa 65 or even Alexa LF. The more important question is does it even matter?

At this point most high end cameras are all so good we're splitting hairs.

Any tribal belief that only one camera system is the best starts to reflect our politics, where we're all in isolated camps yelling at each other.

The truth is - much like in politics - most cameras actually have way more in common than they are different. The difference btw LF, Monstro and Venice is probably 10%.

And as for film - it has a unique look, and hopefully it sticks around as long as possible. It's another creative choice, and the more choices the better. Same goes for cameras and lenses. The more the better.

 

[Mestizo Devon]

Not sure if this has been stated yet, but will Komodo have ProRes or not??

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

Not sure if this has been stated yet, but will Komodo have ProRes or not??

Or not.

 

[Alex Stolpakov]

Or not.

Can you point out, where it was sad about it? I thought the question is still open about it.

 

[Bastien Tribalat]

Can you point out, where it was sad about it? I thought the question is still open about it.

"For now", it's still unknown because I dont' recall Jarred saying "no" but I think they would have mentionned it by now. And Soderbergh seems to use an external recorder with the camera to get ProRes anyway (to use as proxies I suppose) granted that the photo is pretty old by now and the feature may (or may NOT) have been added.

So far, here is what's been said about

Sensor Technology: New 6K Sensor that features global shutter and rolling shutter modes as well as Phase Detect Auto Focus
Max Resolution: 6144×3240 (full sensor with DCI aspect ratio)
Max Framerate: 6K FF @ 40fps, 6K WS @50fps, 4k @60fps shouldn’t be a problem, there should be 48fps modes available
Anamorphic Support: Yes, but it will not be officially available till around two months after initial release
Codec Support: Internal Compressed RAW (REDCODE RAW, R3D), unknown if other codecs are supported as of now
Lens Mount: Integrated Canon RF Mount. Jarred said they are doing the EF protocol first, so native support for RF lenses will most likely not be there at launch.
Media Type: CFast 2.0 (body features a media slot compartment w/ door). Jarred later said they are also testing CFexpress for future use, but for Komodo they decided to stick with CFast 2.0.
Power Options: Dual slot Canon BP style batteries (various capacities) with hot swap and ability to run off one battery, DC input 12V (LEMO), Lower power draw than DSMC2
Camera Control: Integrated Touch Screen, On Camera Buttons, Some sort of Smartphone Interface, WiFi Control, EXT Port
Monitoring: Top Side Pogo Cableless Display Tech, 4K 6G or 12G SDI Out
Audio: Mic In 3.5mm jack, Headphone Jack, Internal Scratch Mic
Camera Cooling: It appears there’s an internal heat sink and fan w/ vent
Form Factor: < 4x4x4″ with magnesium/aluminum alloy body
Body Weight: < 2lbs
Buttons/Indicators: on/off switch, power/status indicator, record button, tally light, menu, menu selection up/down, funtion set, playback (probably toggle), 2X eject buttons for batteries, media compartment open
Wireless Camera Inteface/Control: WiFi w/ Antenna
Mobile Phone Support: Android and iOS
Rigging: 1/4″-20 around Pogo, 4X M4 around front of camera, 1X M3 for focus hook, general base plate form factor of DSMC2-style bodies

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Christoffer perhaps this is best saved for a conversation elsewhere... but until 1's and 0's can become the same physical process of exposing silver halide crystal to light, I cannot proceed with your discussion.

Because the discussion of film vs digital is as old as the two of them, I think the best way to approach the question is to first distance oneself from the biases we have to any of it. Then examine the question from a broader perspective. If we do a deductive argument (philosophy), there's no denying the conclusion. Digital will someday be able to simulate and replicate the exact look of something. It might take a new form of sensor past CMOS technology, maybe some kind of nano-crystal layered sensor that bounce light in an organic form before registering or a sensor that doesn't use pixels in the same way we're used to, but my point was that we will reach a point where film and digital can't be distinguished at all. We cannot be more perceptive than human. Using today's measurements and biases for judging the future of digital needs to be more open-minded than "it can never be". There's no question that it will be, it's just something we have to embrace and I don't see the problem with that. Until that time, film will still be relevant. But whenever we're at the point when there's too few around to want that choice, no one will manufacture film anymore, so choice isn't really an option then.

This is what I mean with the question being broader than just looking at digital vs film at this time in history. I could have made the argument back before Red and it would still hold true. In 20-30 years time, we might not even have cameras in the same way as we think of them today. The past 20 years have been a race to fine-tune digital still and video to match chemical film, but going forward it's more than that, it's about expanding the capabilities of the photographic language. 20 years from now we might not even have anything more than a box that we point in one direction and then everything can be fine-tuned in post. Speculating such technology requires more than just looking at sensor tech, it's world tech. It's closer to what futurist analytics do by combining different areas of tech and market to predict massive changes in society and tech. We might not even make movies 20 years from now in the same way anymore, maybe everything is done in realtime graphics, using cameras that don't photograph anything but capturing movement and facial expressions on actors not even used in physical form for the end result. While digital photography is more for family/life applications or for niche future hipsters using a new social media app that replicate the "old Instagram app back from the early 2000s".

Technology like this evolves with society, with norms, economy and convenience. If the cost of making a Marvel-sized blockbuster in realtime graphics isn't more than an indie film, but still looks real and photographed, then no studio in the world would choose to actually film it for real. And if that applies to indie filmmakers as well, even the low budget ones benefit from it over shooting it for real. The niche of doing so would be so low in demand that no one but the super-rich would do it. There's no point in looking at what we individually like or dislike today, these things simply are and will be.

For the next 10 years, I'll predict that at some point we get a new sensor tech that will take over CMOS. We will get a new battery tech that will drastically reduce sizes and increase shooting time. We will see the rise of Z Depth cameras opening the possibility to manipulate depth of field in post and putting in VFX elements without post tracking or rotoscoping. Makeup will start to lose its relevance on set since such things can be changed in post. Stabilizations will reduce in size and going into the 2030s we will probably no longer need rigs for it, all done in-camera. Noise will be much lower and shooting at up to ISO12800 will be noiseless without loss in image quality.

Of course, all of those are speculations, but not wild speculations. There's too much that may happen going forward that the relevance of film will lose its grip faster than it's image quality loses relevance. So I'd say that film will die far before we even get to the point of exactly simulating the chemical process digitally.

The approach to crafting the image is entirely unique to the canvas you paint on, the painter, the brush...

Would you like to paint on a canvas using tempera? I'll bet that there were wild discussions during the renaissance about how oil won't replace tempera and then it did. History won't care for our preferences and while tempera is possible to just use if you like, as some have done for the sake of it since the 16th century, no one will be able to just produce chemical film for their projects, not even for niche applications. I'd say that the death of film will happen when the simulation of the film process is indistinguishable from the real thing, not just the colors and grain, but every aspect of it. Even today, Steve Yedlin has done extensive work on trying to replicate everything that happens in a 35mm camera using digital cameras, and I'm talking about 10-20 years from now.

Our preferences won't survive history.

 

[Peter Stanley]

I have a thought. I know it’s not a good enough format for tv and film, but I think this camera could benefit from having an option to record to mp4 files.

Reason being that this is a camera that will be used by a lot of on the go shooters. It will be placed along with dji Mavics, 360 cams, go pros ect... they all shoot mp4.

MP4 is a very handy format for ‘quick’ edits say on a small laptop or as is becoming popular an iPad Pro. I know reds image is way to good to be compressed to mp4 but the option could come in very handy. I guess that’s what DSLRs are for thou.

Anyway Just a thought.

 

[David Rasberry]

I have a thought. I know it’s not a good enough format for tv and film, but I think this camera could benefit from having an option to record to mp4 files.

Reason being that this is a camera that will be used by a lot of on the go shooters. It will be placed along with dji Mavics, 360 cams, go pros ect... they all shoot mp4.

MP4 is a very handy format for ‘quick’ edits say on a small laptop or as is becoming popular an iPad Pro. I know reds image is way to good to be compressed to mp4 but the option could come in very handy. I guess that’s what DSLRs are for thou.

Anyway Just a thought.

You will likely be able to record MP4 via the smart phone interface just as you would on your phone or via an external recorder.
But this is not a video camera. Redcode raw only internally.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I have a thought. I know it’s not a good enough format for tv and film, but I think this camera could benefit from having an option to record to mp4 files.

Reason being that this is a camera that will be used by a lot of on the go shooters. It will be placed along with dji Mavics, 360 cams, go pros ect... they all shoot mp4.

MP4 is a very handy format for ‘quick’ edits say on a small laptop or as is becoming popular an iPad Pro. I know reds image is way to good to be compressed to mp4 but the option could come in very handy. I guess that’s what DSLRs are for thou.

Anyway Just a thought.

You will be able to through a phone, but I would say that mp4 is a terrible format for "quick edits". Mp4 is very taxing on the system and you would be better off having a lower ProRes format instead. Even on my high end machine, I usually transcode mp4s to ProRes or DNxHR before editing. Never go for high taxing long GOP formats when doing something fast. Mp4 is better as a distribution format.