RED Komodo to start limited shipping soon for $6k

[Razz16mm]

Yeah - so it isn't a slow-mo camera. Whoop di friggin do.

The FX9 will only be able to shoot 60p at 87% of the full frame size, which I think is more of a travesty for that camera than for Komodo, given their use cases.

If people want RED with HFR, pay another $10k+.

(That said, I'm still thinking a Sony A7S3 slots in better with my FS7, which I would love to be a C300mk3 instead. But the FS7 will remain relevant and I already own it. Komodo would improve all my footage but I have many clients who wouldn't want to shoot RAW and consider RED as a RAW shooter although it shoots ProRes. So from a business perspective I might be better served by the Pocket 6K than Komodo (since it's cheaper) but will probably buy neither.)

A raw cinema camera would not be my first choice for typical low to mid market commercial/industrial production.

For personal creative work however I’m only interested in shooting raw and have a strong preference for global shutters.

Remains to be seen if I can afford to upgrade to a Komodo from my Digital Bolex, but it certainly is looking like an ideal candidate.

 

[Guest]

A raw cinema camera would not be my first choice for typical low to mid market commercial/industrial production.

For personal creative work however I’m only interested in shooting raw and have a strong preference for global shutters.

Remains to be seen if I can afford to upgrade to a Komodo from my Digital Bolex, but it certainly is looking like an ideal candidate.

Actually, i think the Komodo is near perfect for my personal preferences too. I never shoot slomo, but might do that 48fps lip sync music video trick, and HFR ala Peter Jackson style, but unless something is over 240fps, i don’t really shoot much in the 60-200fps range. My brain just doesn’t see things that way. However, 240fps and up begins to look like a moving photograph, and that i can appreciate. But really only phantom seems to be doing those kinds of frame rates.

Of course i’m not a fan of the box, but i’ll take a small box and add a handle. Just won’t have that instant access to controls like the Canon 60D or 1D have. But the simplicity is intriguing. So, i could get it for two uses, my walk about camera, and as my gimbal b-cam slash handheld action scene cam (think paul greengrass) Plus, would allow for mento use a light weight jib at longer lengths.

But you’ll even hear Jarred in that live hang out session, that even the A7sII isn’t bad. Phil Holland snorted at that comment, but it is true. Everytime i look back at A7sii footage (or 1DC) i am sometimes shocked how good it can look, despite all conventional opinions might say about the compression and 8bit, but honestly most of the time were are watching much worse on the web or TV. So, for clients and work, there really are a lot of options.

 

[Guest]

I like the look of the black body, and thinknit would look sick next to the Red Ranger, but the Storm Trooper might help with heat in the SoCal sun. Not sure i want to pay a grand for a custom colour though.

 

[ahalpert]

A raw cinema camera would not be my first choice for typical low to mid market commercial/industrial production.

I'd make it work if they let me.

 

[ahalpert]

But you’ll even hear Jarred in that live hang out session, that even the A7sII isn’t bad. Phil Holland snorted at that comment, but it is true. Everytime i look back at A7sii footage (or 1DC) i am sometimes shocked how good it can look, despite all conventional opinions might say about the compression and 8bit, but honestly most of the time were are watching much worse on the web or TV. So, for clients and work, there really are a lot of options.

I was looking at some lens reviews this morning pondering a midrange FE zoom for eventual A7SIII to take full advantage of AF. Gotta say - the A7III footage did not look terrible. Adequate detail, the lens was fine. Colors could have been improved in the grade...

I think we're used to seeing compression, it's like a wash over everything. Sometimes I'm almost taken aback looking at BM footage that I can clearly see every strand of hair moving in slow-motion.

It's technically superior to compressed footage, but sharpness is not always desired. Why do we filter and use vintage lenses? (Though sure it's nice to control the degree of softening)

Possession of Hannah Grace was shot on A7SII (albeit with an Atomos) and grossed $43 million

 

[Run&Gun]

It has been interesting seeing some actual incredulity bordering on outrage at some of Komodos rumored specs.

But why are all these people complain about it like it is a bad A cam, but a good price, when in fact it is a high end action cam with a high price. It is currently a $7,000 hand made GoPro, but with better image quality than a BMPCC6K.

Seems a lot of people were hoping it would be able to be their main camera. When the Arri Mini came out, it was not designed as an A Camera either, and there are still a lot of ergonomic issues with the Alexa mini. And the Mini LF fixes some of the ergonomic issues, but then has lower frame rates due to heating/cooling restrictions of the smaller body. But all these drawbacks of the B cam design don't outweigh the smaller lighter package and lower price tag, so invariably, we'll see these things as A cam.

I read a comment on Newsooter, where some guy was scoffing at the max frame rates of 6K. Saying how clients demand 60fps.... ok, but don't clients also demand that you don't show up with a glorified GoPro?

There looks to be some cool modern features. I am interested in how the Wifi stuff plays out. Supposedly there is wifi video feed, and control from the phone. And to be honest, the frame rate options are better than the Scarlet MX. So, this could very well end up as an A cam for those that are ok with some of the limits, but it does seem clear that DSMC3 will be a much better A cam. Komodo feels like a half step. Might be one of the last "low tech" cameras. We're seeing camera getting more and more modern options.

Yeah, they’ve said countless times that it was not designed to be an ‘A’ cam. And people can shoot 60fps, just not at 6K. I shoot a lot of sports oriented content and I still rarely go over 60fps.

 

[Razz16mm]

Actually, i think the Komodo is near perfect for my personal preferences too. I never shoot slomo, but might do that 48fps lip sync music video trick, and HFR ala Peter Jackson style, but unless something is over 240fps, i don’t really shoot much in the 60-200fps range. My brain just doesn’t see things that way. However, 240fps and up begins to look like a moving photograph, and that i can appreciate. But really only phantom seems to be doing those kinds of frame rates.

Of course i’m not a fan of the box, but i’ll take a small box and add a handle. Just won’t have that instant access to controls like the Canon 60D or 1D have. But the simplicity is intriguing. So, i could get it for two uses, my walk about camera, and as my gimbal b-cam slash handheld action scene cam (think paul greengrass) Plus, would allow for mento use a light weight jib at longer lengths.

But you’ll even hear Jarred in that live hang out session, that even the A7sII isn’t bad. Phil Holland snorted at that comment, but it is true. Everytime i look back at A7sii footage (or 1DC) i am sometimes shocked how good it can look, despite all conventional opinions might say about the compression and 8bit, but honestly most of the time were are watching much worse on the web or TV. So, for clients and work, there really are a lot of options.

The problem with highly compressed sub sampled video as a production format for me is the lack of grading flexibility in post. Pretty much have to nail the look you want in camera.

 

[Razz16mm]

I'd make it work if they let me.

I hear you. Most people have no imagination and little understanding of the technologies available to us.

 

[Run&Gun]

The problem with highly compressed sub sampled video as a production format for me is the lack of grading flexibility in post. Pretty much have to nail the look you want in camera.

I’m not saying I’m not glad that we have the tools that we have today, but that’s the way we used to have to do it. There may have been some slight tweaks here and there, but you were probably at least 90%-95% there in-camera.

I’m not aiming this comment at you, but so many people today act like it’s the end of the world if they have to set a look and “burn it in” or it’s just somehow impossible to expose and white balance properly in the field. I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve read a post from someone talking about the elusive “nailing the exposure” as if they were hunting Bigfoot. I mean that is Camera 101.

 

[ahalpert]

I’m not aiming this comment at you, but so many people today act like it’s the end of the world if they have to set a look and “burn it in” or it’s just somehow impossible to expose and white balance properly in the field.

I completely agree and I still have many clients/shoots I do not shoot LOG for because they don't want to grade. So it has to look good straight out of the box. And honestly, I think the colors may be richer that way because they're not being so desaturated to begin with (and how often do we blow our color channels anyway? I can adjust the profile when I run into those situations.) But i definitely lose some highlights here and there by not shooting LOG.

That being said, no photographer I know shoots JPEGs instead of RAW. (OK some might shoot both simultaneously sometimes to have JPEGs ready to deliver.) But not shooting RAW all the time in video is purely due to technical limitations.

 

[Razz16mm]

I’m not saying I’m not glad that we have the tools that we have today, but that’s the way we used to have to do it. There may have been some slight tweaks here and there, but you were probably at least 90%-95% there in-camera.

I’m not aiming this comment at you, but so many people today act like it’s the end of the world if they have to set a look and “burn it in” or it’s just somehow impossible to expose and white balance properly in the field. I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve read a post from someone talking about the elusive “nailing the exposure” as if they were hunting Bigfoot. I mean that is Camera 101.

I agree. But a lot of people seem to struggle with fundamentals like optimum exposure. If one is consistent in the way one shoots it isn't a problem for normal video.
I had a nightmare two camera betacam shoot in the late 80's where unknown to me the second camera op white balanced between every shot. Nothing matched in post. A much more difficult and expensive to deal with problem in those days than now.

 

[Razz16mm]

I was looking at some lens reviews this morning pondering a midrange FE zoom for eventual A7SIII to take full advantage of AF. Gotta say - the A7III footage did not look terrible. Adequate detail, the lens was fine. Colors could have been improved in the grade...

I think we're used to seeing compression, it's like a wash over everything. Sometimes I'm almost taken aback looking at BM footage that I can clearly see every strand of hair moving in slow-motion.

It's technically superior to compressed footage, but sharpness is not always desired. Why do we filter and use vintage lenses? (Though sure it's nice to control the degree of softening)

Possession of Hannah Grace was shot on A7SII (albeit with an Atomos) and grossed $43 million

H.265 HEVC is improving things a lot, especially with 4k UHD HDR streaming delivery. But the flattening of values and loss of color and texture in deep shadows is one of the things I hate most about compression.

 

[Sttratos]

I’m not saying I’m not glad that we have the tools that we have today, but that’s the way we used to have to do it. There may have been some slight tweaks here and there, but you were probably at least 90%-95% there in-camera.

I’m not aiming this comment at you, but so many people today act like it’s the end of the world if they have to set a look and “burn it in” or it’s just somehow impossible to expose and white balance properly in the field. I’ve lost count the number of times I’ve read a post from someone talking about the elusive “nailing the exposure” as if they were hunting Bigfoot. I mean that is Camera 101.

I 100% agree with you. Proper craft and form is on the way out in this business. Unfortunately though this is the reality of production today. Most people don't want to commit on set or location because they either don't know what they are doing, and cheap gear allowed for a lot of people who would have no business in this business to be here, or because they are too lazy to research before. Quentin Tarantino actually talks about similar things all of the time. But there is no going back.

Now watch all the downvotes from people who don't know what they are doing.

 

[Run&Gun]

I agree. But a lot of people seem to struggle with fundamentals like optimum exposure. If one is consistent in the way one shoots it isn't a problem for normal video.
I had a nightmare two camera betacam shoot in the late 80's where unknown to me the second camera op white balanced between every shot. Nothing matched in post. A much more difficult and expensive to deal with problem in those days than now.

We both can remember when “fix it in post” was said in jest. Now it’s all but trivial to do. And unfortunately, it’s taking a lot of the craft out of the craft, because so many coming up today don’t have to learn the fundamentals or know how certain lights are really going to look on-camera and other things like that. They think they can just point the camera in the general direction and fix it all in post. Exposure blown? Bring down in post. Bad/wrong WB? Correct it in post. Bad framing? Crop-in/re-frame in post.

Imagine sending some of these kids out today with a Betacam with a B&W VF in a mixed lighting situation and only the rudimentary color/phase/brightness controls built into the playback deck to “fix” what they didn’t get right in-camera. The thought of shooting with just a B&W VF again just gave me chills... Lol

 

[Run&Gun]

I 100% agree with you. Proper craft and form is on the way out in this business. Unfortunately though this is the reality of production today. Most people don't want to commit on set or location because they either don't know what they are doing, and cheap gear allowed for a lot of people who would have no business in this business to be here, or because they are too lazy to research before. Quentin Tarantino actually talks about similar things all of the time. But there is no going back.

Now watch all the downvotes from people who don't know what they are doing.

There is no denying that having the flexibility to essentially do whatever you want in post now is incredible, but knowing what you’re doing and trying to achieve beforehand makes the product that much better in the end.

Back in the Betacam or maybe early HD days, I was shooting on a continuing doc series for many years. There was a sub-set/special interest series that they started working on that was separate from the main series and was going to be treated specially. The problem was, they didn’t tell any of us that they were going to be treated differently, so we lit them and shot them as we normally did. They ended up making them black & white. If we had know that going in, imagine how much differently you probably would have lit most of these interviews. In the end, most looked like they just turned the chroma all the way down.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Hey you kids, get outta my yard!

 

[ahalpert]

Ansel Adams didn't take a shot until he knew exactly how he was going to print every portion of the frame. He had great command of the printing process, but having a plan for how it would all turn out was an integral part of achieving the look. That and the whole "composition" thing.

But his pictures are mad old, so they must be really bad

 

[Razz16mm]

Ansel Adams didn't take a shot until he knew exactly how he was going to print every portion of the frame. He had great command of the printing process, but having a plan for how it would all turn out was an integral part of achieving the look. That and the whole "composition" thing.

But his pictures are mad old, so they must be really bad

One of the greatest contributions to the art of photography made by Ansel Adams and Minor White is the Zone system for matching scene values to exposure and print settings consistently. It works equally well for film and digital cameras, still and motion, paper prints or digital flat panel displays. I use it to this day for determining optimum exposure and maintaining consistency from shot to shot. At it's heart it is a sound method for matching exposure and grayscale value settings through the production chain to visually achieve what you want to see independent of the technology used to produce the image. Pure physics of light and vision as interpreted by the eye.

 

[Grug]

One of the greatest contributions to the art of photography made by Ansel Adams and Minor White is the Zone system for matching scene values to exposure and print settings consistently. It works equally well for film and digital cameras, still and motion, paper prints or digital flat panel displays. I use it to this day for determining optimum exposure and maintaining consistency from shot to shot. At it's heart it is a sound method for matching exposure and grayscale value settings through the production chain to visually achieve what you want to see independent of the technology used to produce the image. Pure physics of light and vision as interpreted by the eye.

It still baffles me why camera (and monitor) manufacturers haven't incorporated the Zone System into their False Colour metering implementation. The only crowd who have (as far as I know), were SOUND Devices. I guess they're more attuned to the importance of effective monitoring/metering than image-based companies are, but it's still weird.

A 10-zone False Colour system tells you INSTANTLY where each and every part of your frame sits in exposure. You'd know your contrast balance in a single glance.

It's MADNESS that every single digital camera (both motion and stills) doesn't have this integrated already. It would instantly improve everyone's shooting experience.

 

[Razz16mm]

A waveform monitor is literally an electronic zone chart.