G
Guest
Guest
Best part of the Komodo is:
Red Epic Kit prices:
Red Epic Kit prices:
Komodo is Officially On Sale
- Thread starter Run&Gun
- Start date
Run&Gun
Veteran
A quick scan through the manual and it doesn’t appear to disclose the available frame rates, outside of the base(project) frame rates and max frame rates. The website also does not appear to disclose all available frame rates, either. Deliberate obfuscation? Kinda feels that way...
Grug
Veteran
At the moment it seems you can only get your base framerate (23.98/24 etc) plus the highest possible framerate at that resolution. So at 6k full-sensor, you get 24fps + 40fps. Or at 5k you get 24fps + 50fps.
It's very limited.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Wow... I get the "limited" max frame rates, but I would expect more than just base and max.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Pending firmware update? Or cripple hammer?
G
Guest
Guest
I think it is just Red’s business structure, they seem incapable of finishing a camera before moving on to something else.
They also have a bunch of little quirks that seem so obvious, but just are never sorted out. Which further lends to the theory that they are simply a fashion company and not a camera company. But not Gucci fashion, more like hot topic or something.
But somehow it still beats most everything else. I simply don’t understand it. Maybe they are doing something right, or they’re just being left alone to make niche cameras for higher paying clients? Not like just anyone is going to jump into that.
They also have a bunch of little quirks that seem so obvious, but just are never sorted out. Which further lends to the theory that they are simply a fashion company and not a camera company. But not Gucci fashion, more like hot topic or something.
But somehow it still beats most everything else. I simply don’t understand it. Maybe they are doing something right, or they’re just being left alone to make niche cameras for higher paying clients? Not like just anyone is going to jump into that.
AndreeOnline
Veteran
It has been clear to me for some time that while RED, just like many other famous brands, started out as a bunch of guys in a garage, while in the case of some other brands those guys turned out to be driven geniuses with their own quirks and edges, in RED's case they turned out to be just a bunch of guys in a garage.
I'm not seeing any true vision from RED's leadership and their boxy camera designs—that ironically enough gets COPIED(!) by others who want to cash in on the brand—simply come from the fact that it was the easiest way to build cameras back in the day when all they needed was a box to put their tech in. It's not a thought-through, optimised or user friendly design.
I found RED exciting in 2008. The camera seemed exciting and as if it was bringing something to the table (which it was). I joined the forum and have been following them since. Interest probably peaked around the initial Scarlet announcement (the 3K for 3K one), but it quickly became clear that wasn't to be. Once I was shooting with a C100, which was covering most bases back then in a world of HD delivery, I had no illusions that a C100 would in any way be able to compete with a RED, but when I saw guys with a Scarlet uploaded on Vimeo I was left scratching my head. What was I missing?
Since then, I've been more cautious of swallowing the marketing. More critical in evaluating the claims from RED. This process has driven me more away that towards RED.
It has also become very clear that if you know what you're doing, a lesser camera can produce way better results than a good camera in the hamfisted hands of someone still learning. There are a bunch of guys over on reduser.net (that have been there forever) that insist on taking all available footage and pulling the blacks down to 0 IRE and the whites up to the ceiling, regardless of content, and then adding a bunch of saturation (after a clinical white balance) for good measure. I'm pretty sure they think they are "using technical tools (scopes) to maximise the image potential". But hey, I'm sure they are not alone and there's nothing wrong with tweaking images to one's own liking.
I'm not at all invested in RED, so I'm not really as bitter as I might sound, it's more a feeling of a lost opportunity. I wish they would have taken a slightly different road.
I'm not seeing any true vision from RED's leadership and their boxy camera designs—that ironically enough gets COPIED(!) by others who want to cash in on the brand—simply come from the fact that it was the easiest way to build cameras back in the day when all they needed was a box to put their tech in. It's not a thought-through, optimised or user friendly design.
I found RED exciting in 2008. The camera seemed exciting and as if it was bringing something to the table (which it was). I joined the forum and have been following them since. Interest probably peaked around the initial Scarlet announcement (the 3K for 3K one), but it quickly became clear that wasn't to be. Once I was shooting with a C100, which was covering most bases back then in a world of HD delivery, I had no illusions that a C100 would in any way be able to compete with a RED, but when I saw guys with a Scarlet uploaded on Vimeo I was left scratching my head. What was I missing?
Since then, I've been more cautious of swallowing the marketing. More critical in evaluating the claims from RED. This process has driven me more away that towards RED.
It has also become very clear that if you know what you're doing, a lesser camera can produce way better results than a good camera in the hamfisted hands of someone still learning. There are a bunch of guys over on reduser.net (that have been there forever) that insist on taking all available footage and pulling the blacks down to 0 IRE and the whites up to the ceiling, regardless of content, and then adding a bunch of saturation (after a clinical white balance) for good measure. I'm pretty sure they think they are "using technical tools (scopes) to maximise the image potential". But hey, I'm sure they are not alone and there's nothing wrong with tweaking images to one's own liking.
I'm not at all invested in RED, so I'm not really as bitter as I might sound, it's more a feeling of a lost opportunity. I wish they would have taken a slightly different road.
The problem with - or more like "for"- Red is that R6, A7SIII and R5 do pretty much everything that the lower half of the Red lineup does (sans for some higher frame rates) and do it for a lot less. One can throw it other Canon and Sony models too, from C300MKIII, C500MKII, FX-9, the upcoming FX-6, etc. And all of this was expected years ago. The camera world is hitting the end of their marginal utility (i.e., more expensive is always better) and is turning into a commodity, controlled by the volume manufacturers. Which was also predicted years ago.
And over the next few years, Sonican will bring out more and more until all the independents are wiped out. And in the few years after that, it'll be Sonican's turn because smartphones will be good enough and everyone will demand their iGalaxies on pro sets too.
And over the next few years, Sonican will bring out more and more until all the independents are wiped out. And in the few years after that, it'll be Sonican's turn because smartphones will be good enough and everyone will demand their iGalaxies on pro sets too.
G
Guest
Guest
Now, i wouldn’t go so far as to say hybrid disasters and the first two gen cine eos were much better. They suffer from the same issues as Red in that they are reinventing the wheel.
I still don't much like that boxy shape. It's compact if you don't overdo the rigging, but it's still awkward. It's copied so often because the cameras themselves are so popular in spite of their boxy designs, but obviously the copycats don't really see what they're really copying, which is just the shape of the box.
As cameras have become more affordable, that crowd has become larger across the board. There are a lot of people who want to use Red cameras because they saw them listed as the camera of choice for a film that they liked, and just haven't figured out yet that the camera really doesn't have that much to do with how the final image looks.
They have cachet out the wazoo because they're so popular in high end work, but it doesn't seem that a whole lot of the raving "looking for a talent button" camera dongles have any idea as to WHY they're so popular... and have no idea how to take advantage of what even a now geriatric BMPCC 2.5K could do, let alone what any current camera can.
I'm hopeful that Red's next generation will be a line of Komodo cameras and a line of Rangers, since the Rangers have great ergonomics, unlike the box with a top-mounted camera does, plus having everything important built in reduces the amount of rigging required, and hence lowers the overall size and weight of the full production setup.
John Brawley
Well-known member
Couldn’t agree more.
The whole box design is GREAT for a gimbal setup and TERRIBLE for any other form of camera operating. But gimbals I guess are what everyone’s doing these days so...
The OG Alexa mini was their “gimbal” camera, but because they also gave it some extra features over the Alexa Classic, it started getting used as the primary camera.
It’s a TERRIBLE hand held camera, and yet, that’s what everyone is doing with them.
I get it..back in the day Arri used to have the Arricam ST / LT Or the 535A and 535B before that....
But to those that love modular and box shapes.....I just think it’s so backwards, inelegant and clunky.
JB
Run&Gun
Veteran
Anyone that half-way knows me or has seen me post on here, knows what I like in a camera, and the Komodo is pretty much the opposite of that(probably the 800th time I've said this in the last year). But for some reason, I like it. It appears to be the right balance of small and modular.
The Canon C series are small, compared to a VariCam or Alexa, but they are a ***** to rig, especially for shoulder mounting, because they're not modular. And the F55, while more or less modular(rectangular), is still nowhere close to "as pleasant" for shoulder and hand-held use as a purpose built "shoulder camera".
For most everything else, that's why I still LOVE my ENG cameras and that body style. Lens, battery, cards and you're cooking. They were designed from the outset to sit on your shoulder and be handheld. Last year, one of my friends bought a "regular" Gemini, but they use it 99% of the time on a Movi. If I bought one, it would definitely be the Ranger version, because for me it would be 100% of the time either on sticks or the shoulder.
It works well with sticks also, but that's not exactly an accomplishment, since so does a brick.
And I still think that 95% of gimbal users making films are overusing them because they're trying to make up for having no vision or artistry or skill or taste.
When done right gimbal shots can work very nicely, but far too many seem to be using gimbals a talent replacement.
Since it was designed first as an action camera on steroids, it's basically perfectly designed for that particular sort of task. Mine will probably end up on sticks about 75% of the time, and the rest on a gimbal (I don't do handheld much, it's not my style).
Grug
Veteran
Except that it doesn’t let you record in the specific framerates you’d always want an “action” camera to have. Very frustrating.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
You nailed it. Gimbal abuse is as rampant as slow motion abuse. When you have a reason to move your camera, gimbals can be great, but when people eschew tripod, handheld and slider and
shoot only using a gimbal, the robotic, mechanical, unmotivated movement become tedious really quickly. I don't use mine unless I really need to for a walk and talk or following a talent. I recently
shot a facility tour and the gimbal was definitely the right tool as I had to follow a person around a facility as they walked through it and interacted with the people in the facility. But that was the first time
I had shot with the gimbal in almost a year.
G
Guest
Guest
Have to agree with you on the lower frame rates. Although, RED will likely spin it as a feature. You CAN record at 12fps, but the camera always records at 24fps, so that you have options in post. You know, in case you make a mistake.
- basically how they justify any unfinished issues that have work arounds, instead of completing the camera before moving on and making the previous investment obsolete unless you upgrade.... which is supposedly their version of helping the customer.
G
Guest
Guest
Just to circle back on this real quick, are you hearing other people saying the Gemini is soft? Because it is not a soft, just compared to 6K cameras it has a softness... which I find is a good thing.
I think there is a difference between me saying it "has a softness" in a 4K world and outright saying it is soft, but the softness is really only at the pixel level on a 4K screen. I did a resolution test between the FX9, C500ii and the Gemini, and the Gemini did not resolve as much detail. However, at normal viewing distances, even an HD image is plenty sharp, and the Gemini has a good deal more pixels than the average HD camera.
C300mk2 and F55 were also cameras that have plenty of pixels to be sharp in 1080, but at 4K they have a softness, as well. I've heard the C300mkii was actually soft at 4K, though I've never used the camera.
In my experience, the Gemini at APS-H 5K is sharper than the F55, but at s35 4K is about on par. There are some lenses that require a 4.5K or 4K crop. Though, these days, there is plenty of FF35 cine glass, so it is easy to utilize the full 5K resolution.
After using the F35 and Alexa, I feel if you have good true HD, any resolution after that is all relative. In a quick test I did between the F55 and the F35, the F55 barely had any resolution edge over the F35.
Now, once we get into 12K cameras and beyond, talking soft and sharp will begin to get ridiculous. But in 4K, it is still a thing worth discussing.