VistaVision and Monstro and cinematography?

[Timo Alatalkkari]

Was thinking the same thing - Alexa 65 has a larger sensor than Monstro, and should have a wider FOV

Yes, A65 is 2x wider than s35 so the 30mm WPO FOV is the same as in S35 15mm. And VV is 1.7x wider than s35 so the 30mm WPO FOV is the same as in S35 18mm (17.64mm).

 

[PatrickFaith]

Hey Patrick, Do the MPA cover the full height(21.6mm) of the monstro sensor ? What is the max anamorphic settings on the Monstro 8k ? Do the MPA cover ?

the published image diameter for the MPA is 29.26mm; since height of the sensor seems be the important spec in relation to anamorphic lenses I was wondering what options the MPA will give us with the monstro

I only have the 35mm and 50mm MPA:
8k @ 8:9 (16:9) both fully cover.
7.5k @ 6:5 (2.4) both fully cover (there btw isn't a 6:5 mode at 7.5k so I think I'll run 6:5 at 8k then crop in post when I need that)
8k at 6:5 the 50mm "coversish" but the 35 is a bit shy

.... 7.5 is kind of cool mode though, since my lenses equate to a straight 28 and 40 mm .
.... so for my "budget" approach to having two lenses, I really have gotten a 28,35,40,50 mm MPA (so that's like 80k of lenses for free when I went monstro).

 

[Björn Benckert]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...MTA1ZWIwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjE5MzM3MjA@._V1_.jpg

Sensor size matters, difficult to make picutres looking like this with a small sensor... Now this shot is done with three larger "sensors" but you get the idea.

Even if these images are almost 60 years old they stil beat the crap out of most shots produced today... The size of the backplane has a lot to do with it.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SYppScK4...AAAGBg/Btt-q0outCo/s1600/HowtheWestWasWon.png

Even just a shot like this:

[/url]Chair by Björn Benckert, on Flickr[/IMG]


Above is helium full sensor behind a 2 x ana. So on the horisontal plane the sensor is 29 point something x 2 wide. So equal to a 60mm sensor. To me that shows.



Sensor size is relative to the object so you can scale down your scene to half the size then it will look identical as if you shoot a real sized set with with twice the sensor size... Now, usually its a bit tricky to find actors to fit into all those miniatures

 

[scott devitte]

Quote Originally Posted by Nick Morrison View Post
...
Anyone who thinks a sensor this big is NOT a big deal must also then be non-plussed about anamorphic, for the reasons listed above.

It's as if Monstro, as designed, is a hyper conscious attempt at spherical anamorphic - if that makes any sense?

And it terms of lens uses, yes the implications are huge.

A 35mm is no longer your "normal" lens, a 50mm is. CU's are no longer on a 85mm, they are on a 135mm. Wides are no longer on a 21mm, they are on a 28mm or 35mm.

Super wides don't need a 16mm anymore - a 21mm or 25mm will do.

What does that mean? Well longer lenses in general use means all your footage will be flatter and more compact - for faces and people, this is often a great thing.

Wides will also have noticeably less distortion. A 35mm as a "wide" is HUGE.

In general, using longer lenses will give your images a more medium format compactness than we're used to, and the longer glass also brings more selective focus and shallow depth of field into play.

On set, what we noticed right away was a muscularity and grandeur to the image - less distortion, and a flatter FOV did wonders to human faces.

Also, on a practical level IN POST, being able to shoot 8K VV and easily pull 5K/Super 35 reframes out of numerous parts of this large canvas should be a major boon to many productions. We pull 4K/Academy reframes from 6K Dragon all the time. Monstro will add a whole other dimension to this experience.

Hope this helps.
100%, a good example is my A camera is now a monstro while the B camera is still a dragon weapon 6k. When I switch out the A camera with the B camera at the same blocking point to maintain the same ratio of foreground to background field of view (so the background objects dont change size), I need to change the lens to by 25% wider and loose about 2 stops of depth of field (wide angle lenses I have atleast have significantly less depth of field at the same shooting distance as medium angle lenses). So if I want to keep my depth of field the same, I need to shoot my monstro with like a t4 50mm in order to switch it out with a t2 35mm. This also is the wrong direction in T stops for telling my story, often I want to isolate the foreground object from the background, so want a shallow depth of field with the background dropping off and feeling smaller. Another way of thinking about it is I'm actually gaining 2 stops of shallower depth of field with the monstro at the same shooting distance and field of view - HUGE.
[the concept of backing the camera up so the crops match is flawed, since it also changes perspective in the wrong way I need to go from a story point, most of the time]

There's some shots I just cant do with my 6k, for example if I want to do a medium-wide shot with the foreground object popping a bit out in ratio to the background, yet still have a lot of the background still in frame. This type of shot is real nice in that it establishing the viewers attention while still giving context. I think people will start talking about foreground/background depth compression a lot more after they shoot a while with monstro, and really notice a bunch of story compromises they where making with 35mm.

One thing I have noticed which doesn't matter as much on my A vs B camera's which is somewhat counter intuitive from at least the publicity of large frame, is that on establishing wide shots I really don't notice much difference between my A and B camera. If the depth of field is wide(foreground and background are all in focus), and if the foreground object is ok to be compressed to the background, that type of shot can be handled easily with lens choices on my B camera. This is good for me, in that I just can allocate my B camera on wide shots and then A monstro camera is allocated on everything else. Why I think this is counter intuitive is I use to hear all the time in the old days when I actually watched VV in the theaters, that VV large expanse establishing shots were the total rage in the publicity of that format. [i guess lens tech has passed that up, where the new wide angle lenses on smaller sensors I think do a great job if one is shooting for wide depth of field] When I see 16mm films that really work "story wise", I see that the story has the main character somewhat emotionally overwelmed by thier background, so the lens foreground/background compression of 16mm camera makes sense for that, so aligning the story to the creative technical choices don't mean in everycase wider sensors is better though.


Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lyons Collister, ASC View Post
My point being is that Nolan doesn't shoot in IMAX for the resolution but for the "feeling" the larger format helps form.
So the math and physics of optics and circle of confusion exist but it is our visual perception of the result that matters most......

Could not agree more with this.

I half-jokingly call what we are doing here “The Quantization of Human Visual Perception.”

It’s true. The feeling and perspective do change, and real optical math actually backs up this assertion."


My take on what Nick Morrison, PartrickFaith, Peter Lyons Collister and Dan Kane are all commenting on. I don't personally know Patrick but have followed and appreciate his thoughts and insights on Reduser, or Peter Lyons Collister, but he nails the argument succinctly. We have all been around a lot of cameras and lenses in our careers.

I was at Nick's studio last year along with Dane Kane and others to do lens tests on my Stormtrooper Helium 8k. It was one of the first batch and everybody was curious as to what it was. We went thorough quite a variety of lenses and were all impressed with the Stormtrooper 8K for various reasons, but it was "more resolution" as Peter points that out we were looking at- it was marvelous technically and a stress test for the lenses, but, and as I further felt over the next year while shooting S35 8k alongside my 6k Dragons it was a not a different "feeling". It was S35 on steroids. It was micro surgery on an existing body. It was/is great but....

Monstro is a different creature. I had ordered three VV's at NAB 2015, Because I love 35mm FF, it is how I frame the world, and, because I like to shoot proscenium style- center flat to the action and a left and a right cross, but for this you need matching cameras/lenses because you are doing a line cut with your actors in real time gaining spontaneity and "feel" on the fly as opposed to mainly cutting in post. Coming out of first 16mm then broadcast NTSC small sensors the jump to S35 was wonderful, C300 1080p, then C500 4k, then Red 6k then Helium 8k, the resolution got better and better, the color science and all the fun stuff that we have come to know and love. But I waited like everybody else with great anticipation, since VV was announced, for the sea change it promised and Monstro now delivers.

At Nick's with the Stormtrooper/Monstro 8k this time, this year, again, fortunately for me, one of the first batch. We started wide and went long, lens after lens of just utter amazement/delight at what we were witnessing. Nick's treasure chest of legacy Contax lenses met the sensor size they were designed for- RED had done the math to make it happen, but it is what we were feeling- that we had entered a new found land of possibilities that we could explore and do our art with that was so palpable. These little old ebay beauties shining the light on the new Monstro sensor. And that is just the beginning. Welcome to the dance.

 

[Nick Morrison]

At Nick's with the Stormtrooper/Monstro 8k this time, this year, again, fortunately for me, one of the first batch. We started wide and went long, lens after lens of just utter amazement/delight at what we were witnessing. Nick's treasure chest of legacy Contax lenses met the sensor size they were designed for- RED had done the math to make it happen, but it is what we were feeling- that we had entered a new found land of possibilities that we could explore and do our art with that was so palpable. These little old ebay beauties shining the light on the new Monstro sensor. And that is just the beginning. Welcome to the dance.

Scott, testing your Monstro together was an AMAZING experience, and this lyrical, F.Scott Fitzgerald-esque description of that day is MUCH APPRECIATED, especially today on Thanksgiving!

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Your RED VV and ARRI65 columns are swapped.

It's not swapped, but it is quite possibly the most confusing way to lay out a chart.

Pay specific attention to "for getting the similar AoV as an 18mm on S35 camera, you need to choose 30mm WPO lens" So the numbers underneath the RED VistaVision and Alexa 65 columns are in reference to S35, NOT VV or 65.

Basically it's saying a 30mm T3.5 WPO lens on RED VistaVision gives you the same AoV and DoF as 18mm T2.1 on S35. The same 30mm on Alexa 65 gives the same AoV as 15mm T1.8 on S35.

It's incredibly counter-intuitive.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

Thanks Aaron! I did not get that the first time around. (It took me three times through your explanation to settle it in my mind.)

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Thanks Aaron! I did not get that the first time around. (It took me three times through your explanation to settle it in my mind.)

Here. I made a chart the way we're all expecting to see one.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

So the math and physics of optics and circle of confusion exist but it is our visual perception of the result that matters most......

A 35mm is no longer your "normal" lens, a 50mm is. CU's are no longer on a 85mm, they are on a 135mm. Wides are no longer on a 21mm, they are on a 28mm or 35mm.

Super wides don't need a 16mm anymore - a 21mm or 25mm will do.

What does that mean? Well longer lenses in general use means all your footage will be flatter and more compact - for faces and people, this is often a great thing.

Wides will also have noticeably less distortion. A 35mm as a "wide" is HUGE.

In general, using longer lenses will give your images a more medium format compactness than we're used to, and the longer glass also brings more selective focus and shallow depth of field into play.

On set, what we noticed right away was a muscularity and grandeur to the image - less distortion, and a flatter FOV did wonders to human faces.....

I totally agree with Peter when he says “So the math and physics of optics and circle of confusion exist but it is our visual perception of the result that matters most……” but I am trying to drill down to understand why this is the case.

Unfortunately the English language suffers a vocabulary paucity when it comes to imagery. Add to that the meaning of the words describing imagery can be allusive so it will be helpful to clearly define the meaning of the words we use.

Nick can you expand on your observation that “longer lenses in general use means all your footage will be flatter and more compact - for faces and people….” I am unsure of the meaning of “flatter” and “compact?”

You then say “In general, using longer lenses will give your images a more medium format compactness than we're used to, and the longer glass also brings more selective focus and shallow depth of field into play.

.........On set, what we noticed right away was a muscularity and grandeur to the image - less distortion, and a flatter FOV did wonders to human faces......

I certainly understand using longer lenses allows for more focus separation but again unsure what a “flatter FOV” I realise muscularity and grandeur are descriptive terms but I am trying to understand on a fundamental or technical level why the larger formats inspire these words.

If I had a 24mm on a 2/3” camera and shot a MCU of my subject I would be a fair distance away resulting in a flatter perspective on the face and a background that was compressed. The same 24mm lens on a VV sensor to shoot the same MCU would see me move the camera quite close exaggerating the geometry or perspective on the face and also increasing the perspective or FOV of the background?


Until my camera returns Monstro’d I can only play mind games but it seems with large sensors you can fundamentally change your cinematography in two ways:

Firstly keep you camera in the same position as you would for 35mm Academy and use longer lenses. This will give you the same perspective as S35 but more opportunity for focus separation which in turn helps create the human perception of three dimensional depth. It also allows you to avoid using extremely short focal lengths*


Alternatively I use the same lenses as I would on my equivalent S35 shoot and instead pick up the camera and walk closer to my subjects so as to maintain the subjects size. So now we have changed and exaggerated the perspective and have decreased DOF as we are now focusing closer. This process in my mind would help create the perception of “muscularity and grandeur to the image”

Thoughts? My brain is beginning to hurt


* What exactly is bad about extremely short focal lengths? If I am in a small space with my back to the wall on a VV sensor I might be able to use a 20mm but on a S35 I would be using a 12mm. Apart from DOF is there going to be a difference? Is the advantage its easier and cheaper to build a 20mm lens than a 12mm lens?

 

[Timo Alatalkkari]

Here. I made a chart the way we're all expecting to see one.

WOW great work!

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Hi Tom..

I did some tests a while back with Cooke S7s on a 8k Dragon... Loved the lenses and enjoyed using the camera..

The big chip advantages for me:

To be able keep pushin down the path of efortless easy going soflty presented detail..

to be able to select the exact amount of the poor perfoming part of the lenses that I like.. (the way off axis bit of the lens) ..

to be able to shoot wider shots shallower... (closer tighter shallow is easy to achive but wider full body shots we often end up softening backgrounds in post )

We have to some extent shot stills on all our Red cameras but to be honest we always wanted and sometimes really needed a bigger chip... (would really prefer montro to be 42x24 so I could shoot 36x24...)

Easier to shoot odd non cinema formats... hands up who has shot square or 4:3 spherical this year?

Looking forward to your results..

Michael

 

[Mark Wuerthner]

Thoughts? My brain is beginning to hurt

Tom:
For a clearer visual demonstration of perspective/field of view of different camera formats that might ease your brain pain, go read this on Steve Yedlin's website:

http://www.yedlin.net/170504.html

Once again Mr. Yedlin shows with extremely clear examples and science what the differences are in regard to this topic. From what I can see, things look very similar when shooting from the same perspective, i.e. the same field of view at the same distance to subject. My take is that going to a longer lens for a larger format isn't going to "flatten" faces out because the focal length is relative to the format size. From what I can see one of the main differences is that you lose depth of field when going up in format size. My guess is that a 40mm sized sensor will "lose" about 1.5 stops of depth of field compared to s35 sized sensor. So, shooting monstro at t2.8 will give same depth of field as s35 sensor at t1.6.

 

[PatrickFaith]

...
For a clearer visual demonstration of perspective/field of view of different camera formats that might ease your brain pain, go read this on Steve Yedlin's website:

http://www.yedlin.net/170504.html

Once again Mr. Yedlin shows with extremely clear examples and science what the differences are in regard to this topic. From what I can see, things look very similar when shooting from the same perspective, i.e. the same field of view at the same distance to subject. My take is that going to a longer lens for a larger format isn't going to "flatten" faces out because the focal length is relative to the format size. From what I can see one of the main differences is that you lose depth of field when going up in format size. My guess is that a 40mm sized sensor will "lose" about 1.5 stops of depth of field compared to s35 sized sensor. So, shooting monstro at t2.8 will give same depth of field as s35 sensor at t1.6.

This seems totally a backwards way of doing the math to me, it's probably right but I'm shooting focused on the story and don't have time to do complex math exercises.

How I do it is pretty simple with a emotional/story based method, which happens to be extremely simple mathematically:
1) Closeness - pick the distance between the camera and the foreground object. this sets the perspective on how big the foreground object looks from the background (closer the camera is to the foreground object, the bigger that foreground object looks compared to the background)
2) Connection - pick the lens that will give me the depth of field I want. Once the distance between the focus object and the camera is set, the primary DOF is based purely on the lens mm type
3) Context - I pick the frame crop I need to show the context between objects. (in the old days the backing is fixed, but with red I just crop on the 8k for what I need, and my output to compositing is 90% of the time 1080p and 10% of the time quadhd, so as long as I don't go below a crop of 5k i'm fine)

I sometimes play with the DOF app from RED on step 2, it's nice because with that it's obvious that once the distance is set that the backing doesn't change the DOF at all and it's purely based on the F/T stop. I am almost awlays compositing the RED footage into a immersive field (at minimum 360 stereo) for my pre-distribution DI. I don't think about the end crop factor in my workflow because the final crop factor is often at a final distribution conform. I do understand my steps completly break most classical film workflows, which btw are loosing distribution and view percentage every day compared to the object/compositing approaches (i.e. games/vr/ar & phones[where the consumer is more in charge of delivery options]).

 

[Jon Dishler]

What is referenced above by Mark, the article by Yedlin, is exactly correct. The larger the sensor, the greater the difference in blur circle at the same angle of view and same f/ stop. This is why many like full frame rather than crop sensor still cameras, in that with lighter glass, the background can be blurred out while keeping the image in sharp focus. For example, I can use a 2.8 zoom on a full size sensor and get about the same image as a 1.8 on a crop sensor. Thus the popularity of the 18-35 1.8 Sigma zoom.

Here is the thing that has not been discussed much in this thread. While I love a large sensor for still photography, I have great autofocus, and strobes. In motion pictures, I am dependent on manual focus, and find that it is difficult to have a very narrow depth of field and maintain good focus, especially with a moving object where the focus changes. So the obvious solution is to stop down and achieve the same image by reducing the aperture. But here is the thing, that also reduces the amount of light. Sometimes that is fine, but other times it means providing more light given that the light sensitivity per pixel is about the same. If the Monstro and the Helium have equal light sensitivity, which I believe they do, then to achieve the same image, by keeping the camera and subject the same distance and varying the lens, it would mean that one would have to stop down and thus increase the amount of light by those same number of stops. If it is 2 stops difference, then we would need four times the amount of light. So for indoor, low illumination, natural lighting shots, one would be better off with a "crop sensor" and be able to open it up to 1.4 or 2.0 and still have some hope of following focus.
In the past, smaller sensors had less ability to see light and to maintain high pixel count, there was a sacrifice in image quality, dynamic range, sensitivity. But with the Helium sensor, very tiny pixels have great qualities, so the benefits of a large sensor are in some ways diminished. In addition, the Helium at 8k is not really that small, about 80% the width of a full frame still camera and is a somewhat a happy middle ground. I know there is a lot of excitement for the WW or Monstro sized sensor, and for the correct applications, it is probably the best choice, but it is not the best for all applications -- which is why Red is wisely going to offer sensor exchanges as needed.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

What is referenced above by Mark, the article by Yedlin, is exactly correct. The larger the sensor, the greater the difference in blur circle at the same angle of view and same f/ stop. This is why many like full frame rather than crop sensor still cameras, in that with lighter glass, the background can be blurred out while keeping the image in sharp focus. For example, I can use a 2.8 zoom on a full size sensor and get about the same image as a 1.8 on a crop sensor. Thus the popularity of the 18-35 1.8 Sigma zoom.

Here is the thing that has not been discussed much in this thread. While I love a large sensor for still photography, I have great autofocus, and strobes. In motion pictures, I am dependent on manual focus, and find that it is difficult to have a very narrow depth of field and maintain good focus, especially with a moving object where the focus changes. So the obvious solution is to stop down and achieve the same image by reducing the aperture. But here is the thing, that also reduces the amount of light. Sometimes that is fine, but other times it means providing more light given that the light sensitivity per pixel is about the same. If the Monstro and the Helium have equal light sensitivity, which I believe they do, then to achieve the same image, by keeping the camera and subject the same distance and varying the lens, it would mean that one would have to stop down and thus increase the amount of light by those same number of stops. If it is 2 stops difference, then we would need four times the amount of light. So for indoor, low illumination, natural lighting shots, one would be better off with a "crop sensor" and be able to open it up to 1.4 or 2.0 and still have some hope of following focus.
In the past, smaller sensors had less ability to see light and to maintain high pixel count, there was a sacrifice in image quality, dynamic range, sensitivity. But with the Helium sensor, very tiny pixels have great qualities, so the benefits of a large sensor are in some ways diminished. In addition, the Helium at 8k is not really that small, about 80% the width of a full frame still camera and is a somewhat a happy middle ground. I know there is a lot of excitement for the WW or Monstro sized sensor, and for the correct applications, it is probably the best choice, but it is not the best for all applications -- which is why Red is wisely going to offer sensor exchanges as needed.

This is a good point I was going to bring up. A lot of the Blackmagic Pocket guys are benefiting from this phenomenon by shooting on f/0.95 lenses or combining the Sigma 18-35 with a Speedbooster and getting an effective 10-20 f/1.0 lens. They're getting lots of light hitting the sensor but the DoF isn't insanely shallow for nighttime shoots. Equivalent DoF would be like shooting T2 on S35, T2.5 on Dragon 6K, and T3.3 on VV.

As for your comparison to Helium, the DoF should be the same between a T2 Lens on Helium and a T2.7 lens of equivalent FoV on Monstro. It's not two stops like you were guessing. And since the ISO calibration, I personally wouldn't shoot much past the new 1600 on Helium (3200 from the old version). But I've pushed Monstro stuff to 3200 and even 6400 that looks fine. So it seems that Monstro really is a winner. But that's what we should expect for $30K more.

Also, daytime stuff on these larger formats will be nice because for equivalent DoF (with equivalent FoV) for what we're used to with S35, you can stop down a bit, negating the need for so much ND. That is, if you didn't want to utilize all the shallow DoF that the camera is capable of.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Think I'm getting a handle on this

Think I'm getting a handle on this

Thanks Mark and I agree with Steve Yedlin's tested observations that perspective does not and cannot change as you move to a larger sensor format if you keep the camera in the same place and compensate with focal length alone. The only change should be in DOF. This is still valuable in creating focus separation on wide FOVs helping to create the allusion of 3D depth.

BUT will not the geometry and perspective of the shot change if we switch our camera from S35 to VV then move the camera forward to maintain subject size. This should unflatten the subjects face and I suspect widen the width of background the camera sees. As the subject and focus is closer DOF should decrease maintaining the focus separation and perception of 3D depth. Apart from the technical advantages I would think this is the key visual difference that creates the "muscularity and grandeur" of large Format photography although a couple of chariots might help with the grandeur.

 

[Timo Alatalkkari]

We will do the next Monday test where we shoot Monstro and Helium side by side. We will publish the tests when they are ready. The purpose is to open the effect of the angle of view when shooting the same WPO ts70 series glass but the sensor is different (Helium vs. Monstro).

 

[Björn Benckert]

We will do the next Monday test where we shoot Monstro and Helium side by side. We will publish the tests when they are ready. The purpose is to open the effect of the angle of view when shooting the same WPO ts70 series glass but the sensor is different (Helium vs. Monstro).

What is the point of such test?

All you will find is that shooting 6k helium compared to VV is like cropping the image with 1/4 in post from 8k to right under 6k.

Sure you can then compensate to achieve the same "angle of view" (strange term I think as it´s normally referred to as FOV) by changing to a wider lens on the smaller sensor and open up to achieve a similar DOF. But that bottoms out when the lens reach the limit of its speed.

So you need faster lenses on the smaller sensor to achieve the same DOF as on the larger sensor.

Simply comparing the two on the same lenses is nothing different than cropping.

Then you got the differences in pixel quality between the two and color rendition etc but I think thats not really whats discussed here, it´s more about the difference the size of sensor brings into a scene.

 

[Jon Dishler]

This is a good point I was going to bring up. A lot of the Blackmagic Pocket guys are benefiting from this phenomenon by shooting on f/0.95 lenses or combining the Sigma 18-35 with a Speedbooster and getting an effective 10-20 f/1.0 lens. They're getting lots of light hitting the sensor but the DoF isn't insanely shallow for nighttime shoots. Equivalent DoF would be like shooting T2 on S35, T2.5 on Dragon 6K, and T3.3 on VV.

As for your comparison to Helium, the DoF should be the same between a T2 Lens on Helium and a T2.7 lens of equivalent FoV on Monstro. It's not two stops like you were guessing. And since the ISO calibration, I personally wouldn't shoot much past the new 1600 on Helium (3200 from the old version). But I've pushed Monstro stuff to 3200 and even 6400 that looks fine. So it seems that Monstro really is a winner. But that's what we should expect for $30K more.

Also, daytime stuff on these larger formats will be nice because for equivalent DoF (with equivalent FoV) for what we're used to with S35, you can stop down a bit, negating the need for so much ND. That is, if you didn't want to utilize all the shallow DoF that the camera is capable of.

Hi Aaron,

I hope you are having a nice holiday weekend. I appreciate your kind words about the light requirements. Concerning the DoF difference, I was thinking more of Super 35 traditional film vs Monstro, which is a reasonable comparison. In this case the width of film is 0.61 that of Monstro (courtesy Phil Holland chart) which is not quite two stops DoF difference but close. Yes, the Helium is wider, thus only about 1 DoF difference, which makes me happy as I own two of them! As to the re calibration, I think that this is s commonly misunderstood concept. I believe what RED is telling us is that the Helium sensor is effectively 1 stop more sensitive to light at any arbitrary ISO setting, or that for a given scene where a Helium is rated at 800, a Dragon would have to be rated at 1600 to get the same image brightness on the screen. Thus, when your Helium is at 1600 this is the same "exposure" as a Dragon at 3200. There is more detail here in the RED whitepaper concerning the recalibration - http://s3.amazonaws.com/red_3/downloads/other/white-papers/ISO Recalibration for HELIUM.pdf. I am not sure how this translates to Monstro, which likely can go up more stops before impacting the image. For this reason I typically shoot my Epic W cameras at around ISO 400-500 up to a maximum of 1600. And yes, at the introductory price of around 20k for the Epic W, it is a big jump to the Monstro (without an upgrade) at around four times that cost, admittedly with many more features.

Best regards,
Jon

 

[Aaron Lochert]

BUT will not the geometry and perspective of the shot change if we switch our camera from S35 to VV then move the camera forward to maintain subject size. This should unflatten the subjects face and I suspect widen the width of background the camera sees.

Those of us without Monstro can actually simulate the effects. Monstro to Dragon is 1.33x and Monstro to Helium is 1.37x

Shoot Dragon 6K vs Dragon 4.5K (1.33x) or Helium 8K against Helium 6K (1.33x) and compare the differences (ignoring resolution/grain of course). As far as perspective and geometry goes, it's functionally the same as going to a wider lens and moving the camera in. The DoF differences will come from using a 1.33x longer lens on the wider format.

As to the re calibration, I think that this is s commonly misunderstood concept. I believe what RED is telling us is that the Helium sensor is effectively 1 stop more sensitive to light at any arbitrary ISO setting, or that for a given scene where a Helium is rated at 800, a Dragon would have to be rated at 1600 to get the same image brightness on the screen. Thus, when your Helium is at 1600 this is the same "exposure" as a Dragon at 3200. There is more detail here in the RED whitepaper concerning the recalibration - http://s3.amazonaws.com/red_3/downloads/other/white-papers/ISO Recalibration for HELIUM.pdf. I am not sure how this translates to Monstro, which likely can go up more stops before impacting the image. For this reason I typically shoot my Epic W cameras at around ISO 400-500 up to a maximum of 1600. And yes, at the introductory price of around 20k for the Epic W, it is a big jump to the Monstro (without an upgrade) at around four times that cost, admittedly with many more features.

Right. I'm saying I wouldn't shoot past 1600 ISO on the new calibration. And if we were still on the old calibration I would be saying I wouldn't shoot past 3200. Functionally the same thing. Hell, they could call it ISO "spaghetti" tomorrow if they wanted; whatever that number is, I wouldn't shoot past that.

Monstro also uses the new calibration, so Helium and Monstro are directly comparable without conversion.

With the footage I've played with, I would be comfortable pushing Monstro to 3200 even viewing 1:1 when I would hesitate to do anything past 1600 with Helium. Which means for the sake of discussion about low light and razor thin DoF, Monstro can afford to stop down a stop or more on the lens, putting them in a similar playing field for DoF and noise.

Not a scientific comparison of any means, but here's a 1:1 crop of 8K WS on both sensors, processed at 3200. Both snippets are from areas of the frame that are black or near black. The Monstro frame is from one of Erich Rolands, and the Helium frame is from a shot I just did on a brand new black shade calibration a few minutes ago. Both clips are 5:1 compression. If I push the Monstro clip to 6400, it looks similar to Helium at 3200.

So while the argument for smaller sensors having deeper DoF in low light is an interesting concept, as sensor technology also improves, it appears that in practice Monstro can play along just fine. Not only that, but the opportunity to avoid shooting WFO at night sounds incredible to me for sharpness and aberration reasons.