Tips for comparing Helium vs Monstro

[AndreasOberg]

Hiya,
I thought I would do a few tests comparing Helium and Monstro.
Any tips how I should do this practically?
We mostly have a large amount still lenses and a few long cinema lenses (30-300 and 50-1000).
First challenge is that to compare the frame you would need to have either a zoom or just different lenses. But with zooms you would loose some of the image quality.

I thought I would test for
- noise
- extra sharpness on monstro
- color differences

Also of a more practical interest would be when it vignettes with some lenses.
A few DSLR lenses I have here are Sigma 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4, 135 f1.8, Canon 24-70 2.8, 16-35 2.8.
/Andreas

 

[Björn Benckert]

Its difficult to make a fair comparison as its very much depending on what lens you got at hand.

If the lens is covering 8k VV, well then its not an optimized lens for helium. And if the lens is covering helium but is soft or vinjetts on Mostro also then its not a fair comparison. To make it right you would need to find best possible lens for helium with a certain FOV and then find best possible lens for VV with the same FOV and then compare. Now you will naturally not find two such identical lenses. So you testing will be contaminated by the differences in what lens / lenses is used.

Fo example it's not really fair to compare the two in FF mode with the Sigma art lenses as there are covering more than needed for helium / there is faster lenses available that covers helium but that would not cover monstro.

One way to get compare is to look at Monstro 6k vs helium 8k. Then sensor size is about the same and you can shoot them with the same lens and see what they look like compared to each other on the same sensor area. But then of course resolution differ.

To me monstro got better color rendition, less color fringing on hard highlights, less noise and is as I see it an overall better camera.

I like monstro better at 6k than I like helium at 8k. Helium might trump in sharpens on that setting if you aim for 8K or very high resolution delivery but then again at 6k monstro can use less compression or higher frame rates and remain the same sensor area. Where as shooting high speed on helium makes the sensor very small very rapidly. Sure if you shoot large cinema zooms and sharpens is what you are after then possibly helium does better there but the close to clip fringing and signal color oddities that helium comes with is not worth it. So to me the only real trump helium has on monstro is the lower price.

But looking forward to hear about your findings. Biggest difference you see when they are pushed hard, burnt out lights, harsh windows, car tail lights, etc.

 

[John Brennick]

Its difficult to make a fair comparison as its very much depending on what lens you got at hand.

If the lens is covering 8k VV, well then its not an optimized lens for helium. And if the lens is covering helium but is soft or vinjetts on Mostro also then its not a fair comparison. To make it right you would need to find best possible lens for helium with a certain FOV and then find best possible lens for VV with the same FOV and then compare. Now you will naturally not find two such identical lenses. So you testing will be contaminated by the differences in what lens / lenses is used.

Fo example it's not really fair to compare the two in FF mode with the Sigma art lenses as there are covering more than needed for helium / there is faster lenses available that covers helium but that would not cover monstro.

One way to get compare is to look at Monstro 6k vs helium 8k. Then sensor size is about the same and you can shoot them with the same lens and see what they look like compared to each other on the same sensor area. But then of course resolution differ.

To me monstro got better color rendition, less color fringing on hard highlights, less noise and is as I see it an overall better camera.

I like monstro better at 6k than I like helium at 8k. Helium might trump in sharpens on that setting if you aim for 8K or very high resolution delivery but then again at 6k monstro can use less compression or higher frame rates and remain the same sensor area. Where as shooting high speed on helium makes the sensor very small very rapidly. Sure if you shoot large cinema zooms and sharpens is what you are after then possibly helium does better there but the close to clip fringing and signal color oddities that helium comes with is not worth it. So to me the only real trump helium has on monstro is the lower price.

But looking forward to hear about your findings. Biggest difference you see when they are pushed hard, burnt out lights, harsh windows, car tail lights, etc.

I'm going to have to agree with Bjorns findings here as well. I'm sure you'll draw your own conclusion but Bjorn really quantified the differences I noticed between helium and monstro. Monstro has a certain quality that doesnt feel as crsip and harsh. Helium is an incredible camera and truly incredible for that price right now. The more shows that come out on Netflix that you find out were shot on Helium the more I see just how impressive it is... But there is always a certain quality that makes it Helium. Monstro's lowlight, while still not a dual ISO is remarkable. When cranked and the ISO gets pushed to 3200 it's so much more filmic than I've seen. But the biggest difference I noticed is the tonal range as well as the highlight rolloff as well. The color fringing (just seconding what Bjorn already said) is way better. You'll find your own findings but I too am curious as to how similar you feel with your outcome, especially with a side by side. I hope to see the postings. Best of luck!

 

[AndreasOberg]

I'm sure you'll draw your own conclusion but Bjorn really quantified the differences I noticed between helium and monstro. Monstro has a certain quality that doesnt feel as crsip and harsh. Helium is an incredible camera and truly incredible for that price right now.

Just did a few tests so far filming flowers with red and green leaves. I took or 24-70 and zoomed one of them so the composition looked similar on both. As I understand the aspect ration is a bit different so it seemed impossible to get an identical composition.
My first findings surprised me a bit. It feels as if Monstro has more 3d depth to it and it is also smoother (less of a surprise). I think the reason is there is just more detail everywhere which adds an extra dimension to the image. Little details in the leaves and flowers that I cannot see with Helium are visible on Monstro. Noise is around a stop better.
Will do more tests tomorrow to make sure that focus is identical.

I have not looked anything at bright highlights, which is maybe a bit less important for wildlife.
I remember that you would say that you prefered 6k Monstro to 8k Helium. It is an interesting thought. I would miss being able to zoom in to 100% as we can do with Helium but of course this would only give good results if you have enough light. In lower light there would not be much point in zooming in because it would be too noisy with Helium. But having access to 75FPS, lower compression and less noise (plus better colors) would be interesting.

I guess it could be interesting to compare the quality of 8k Helium downsampled to UHD and 6k Monstro downsampled to UHD. It would also be interesting to see a 50% zoom of both so you would see the full 6k monstro resolution and helium 8k downsampled to 6k. Also a full 8k test where monstro is upscaled to 8k. In total you would then see what happens if you at various zoom levels.
Andreas

 

[Björn Benckert]

yes comparing 6k Monstro to 8k helium after a downsample to UHD makes sense as it takes the lens out of the equation. If doing so I think you will find that Monstro is still more likable and then it's easy to understand that if you got a good lens that covers Monstro 8k then things will simply be even better.

 

[Phil Holland]

Some quick takes as i've done this comparison:
- At the same format size Helium is of course higher resolution
- Monstro has a slightly lower noise floor, related to the next thing
- Monstro contains more Total Captured Dynamic Range
- Colorimetry is unique between the sensors at the extremes, but shot and exposed well you can of course get them to match with minimal effort.

Any optical tests really shouldn't be done with that zoom in particular, but that's more general advice. Stick to primes when testing that stuff.

Overall you will find the biggest differences at the higher and lower end of ISO ratings and exposures, but within the good stuff in that sandwich it's pretty tasty for both sensors.