RED Komodo to start limited shipping soon for $6k

James0b57 said:
Ha, I was trying to make a related point, but couldn't think of how to phrase it, as I should be asleep. But you basically covered it from a different point of view.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean—this is equally applicable going from the 'top down', or whatever: what's the point of saving some money if you have to give up 'this', 'this' and 'that' (all meaningful to that person).

And the spectrum of what 'meaningful' can be is huge. I'm not a fan of how RED is run in a general sense, but having "access" to Jarred and the team can be HUUUGE. At least RED is communicating with their customers.

And yes, how can it be that some of you guys seem to write stuff here 24H? =)
 
Yes re: access as you were just complaining about the poor prospects of getting Canon to fix their FF 24fps rolling shutter on the 1DXmk3!
 
Any modern raw digital camera can be color matched to be indistinguishable from an Alexa on YouTube with little skill and effort. That is not unique to BM. Reds and Alexas are intermixed on major feature film shoots regularly.
Blow them up on a 40 foot screen with a high quality export codec like JPEG2000 and the differences in IQ between a $2k camera and a $40k camera are much more obvious even if the grades match. Does that matter if you only produce for the web? Not so much.
The best reference tests are those done by Geoff Boyle and friends.
 
James0b57 said:
4hr49min Grossman starts talking like Combatentropy.
Click to expand...

I stumbled across it last night while it was actually live, while I was looking for/watching some Mavic Pro videos. Don’t remember how far it was in, exactly, but Jarred was already on, but probably not for too long before. I had some issues with a few things Grossman said. But he strikes me as kind of the “artist” guy and technical things and things outside of his world he kind of just gleans and regurgitates.
 
Liam Hall said:
Yes, fair point. Honestly, I might not sound like it, but I'm trying to like this camera as I'll be in the market for a small form camera when production gets back up to speed. ProRes and global shutter are two very strong selling points - but I still need convincing.
Click to expand...

I get it. I’ve never been into RED and I’ve never liked the super small form factor cameras, either. I think everyone on this board knows what I like in a camera, by now. But for some reason, this camera has me very interested and it’s size and global shutter are two of the biggies.
 
Razz16mm said:
Any modern raw digital camera can be color matched to be indistinguishable from an Alexa on YouTube with little skill and effort.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle. A modern raw image is pliable. I don't want to quantify how much skill and effort that needs to go into it, because it can probably vary.

Razz16mm said:
Reds and Alexas are intermixed on major feature film shoots regularly. Blow them up on a 40 foot screen with a high quality export codec like JPEG2000 and the differences in IQ between a $2k camera and a $40k camera are much more obvious even if the grades match.
Click to expand...

Here I don't agree. If the images are 4K+ raw and the grades match, they will hold up equally well on a large screen. It's not YouTube compression that is the great equaliser.

Razz16mm said:
The best reference tests are those done by Geoff Boyle and friends.
Click to expand...

I'm sympathetic towards Boyle's tests. Especially if you label them as 'reference tests'. But personally, I can't use a face that's been over exposed by 5 stops for anything. It's not even good to me for reference purposes, because the differences in "highlight handling" of the over exposed face might be significant, whereas the same differences in a graded shot—where this area of the image is likely to happen in the very top, compressed highlights—might not seem so important.

The more DR and image fidelity, the better. I'm all for that. But show me graded footage. And if you then say that the differences won't be as clearly visible... well, that is my point.

And finally, forgive me if I'm going back to the top and paraphrasing you a bit:

Razz16mm said:
Any modern raw digital camera that shoots 6K raw internally for $2k. That is not unique to BM.
Click to expand...

I think that it is.
 
ahalpert said:
Hmm it looks like ProRes 422 takes about 2x as much data as XAVC-I....not as much of a space savings as I thought....maybe the codec is marketable for the same use case....certainly it should be faster to edit with
Click to expand...

Yeah... It’s not a great acquisition format. I had the ProRes/DnX board installed in my F55 when I got it, because people were still asking for it back then, but I could see no visual benefit from it and it took up more space on the cards. I can count the number I’ve times I’ve recorded ProRes on my F55 probably with one hand. I actually could have used it more, but it was so limited in what it could do, namely no slow-mo and no 4K.
 
Run&Gun said:
Yeah... It’s not a great acquisition format. I had the ProRes/DnX board installed in my F55 when I got it, because people were still asking for it back then, but I could see no visual benefit from it and it took up more space on the cards. I can count the number I’ve times I’ve recorded ProRes on my F55 probably with one hand. I actually could have used it more, but it was so limited in what it could do, namely no slow-mo and no 4K.
Click to expand...

Aha but I was actually saying the opposite! I had thought prores was like 5x the size of xavc-i. So then my feeling was that 2x was not so bad. Good to know you found it so little useful on the F55, though. And I suppose that next to xavc-L, prores is quite bloated. But I use xavc-i more often, so I think that's a reasonable comparison.

But in theory, I wouldn't mind having a 12-bit H265 capture codec...
 
AndreeOnline said:
I agree in principle. A modern raw image is pliable. I don't want to quantify how much skill and effort that needs to go into it, because it can probably vary.



Here I don't agree. If the images are 4K+ raw and the grades match, they will hold up equally well on a large screen. It's not YouTube compression that is the great equaliser.



I'm sympathetic towards Boyle's tests. Especially if you label them as 'reference tests'. But personally, I can't use a face that's been over exposed by 5 stops for anything. It's not even good to me for reference purposes, because the differences in "highlight handling" of the over exposed face might be significant, whereas the same differences in a graded shot—where this area of the image is likely to happen in the very top, compressed highlights—might not seem so important.

The more DR and image fidelity, the better. I'm all for that. But show me graded footage. And if you then say that the differences won't be as clearly visible... well, that is my point.

And finally, forgive me if I'm going back to the top and paraphrasing you a bit:



I think that it is.
Click to expand...

The misquote is not related to what I said. There is much more to IQ in depth than mere resolution. Some areas where BM cameras are weak:

Color accuracy and fine color discrimination. (thin Bayer filters optimized for sensitivity rather than color gamut)
Aliasing.
Motion quality.
Color, texture, and shading in deep shadows.

Won't argue with the value proposition. It is a great value for the price. The current generation is much improved over previous ones.
But you can create looks and grades with Arri, Red, or high end Sony's that a BM can't match.
 
ahalpert said:
Aha but I was actually saying the opposite! I had thought prores was like 5x the size of xavc-i. So then my feeling was that 2x was not so bad. Good to know you found it so little useful on the F55, though. And I suppose that next to xavc-L, prores is quite bloated. But I use xavc-i more often, so I think that's a reasonable comparison.

But in theory, I wouldn't mind having a 12-bit H265 capture codec...
Click to expand...

Ah... Yeah, at the time, there was just the lone XAVC codec available on the 55 and ProRes had several versions. I don’t remember exactly, but even just “normal” ProRes was not as efficient and if you bumped up to the higher quality levels, it got silly real fast. You could even go up to quad 4 12-bit.
 
ahalpert said:
Aha but I was actually saying the opposite! I had thought prores was like 5x the size of xavc-i. So then my feeling was that 2x was not so bad. Good to know you found it so little useful on the F55, though. And I suppose that next to xavc-L, prores is quite bloated. But I use xavc-i more often, so I think that's a reasonable comparison.

But in theory, I wouldn't mind having a 12-bit H265 capture codec...
Click to expand...

H.265 requires a lot more brute force processing to decode than XAVC or Prores. XAVC is better optimized for editing. Prores footage you could edit in real time at full resolution on relatively modest computers would require a proxie workflow or transcoding with H.265. It is designed primarily as a high resolution, deep color, streaming delivery codec replacement for H.264 with lower data rates, not an editorial codec.
 
Razz16mm said:
H.265 requires a lot more brute force processing to decode than XAVC or Prores. XAVC is better optimized for editing. Prores footage you could edit in real time at full resolution on relatively modest computers would require a proxie workflow or transcoding with H.265. It is designed primarily as a high resolution, deep color, streaming delivery codec replacement for H.264 with lower data rates, not an editorial codec.
Click to expand...

Right but I use the very painless proxy workflow in FCPX. Capturing H265 might be nice from a data efficiency standpoint, especially as far as transferring through the cloud is concerned.
 
Can really see how the shadows are more neutral on the Komodo.


Looks a touch cleaner too.

After hearing some interviews online of the camera and lighting people that work with David Fincher, they all seem to like a green bias... at least preferred over magenta anyway. I now assume that the green shift on the Helium is a direct result of Fincher and his team's influence. They use that colour science well in their productions. It is less popular than the Kodak style teal/cyan shift that only really Arri does well.
 
Run&Gun said:
I get it. I’ve never been into RED and I’ve never liked the super small form factor cameras, either. I think everyone on this board knows what I like in a camera, by now. But for some reason, this camera has me very interested and it’s size and global shutter are two of the biggies.
Click to expand...

It does feel like cameras sizes go in ranges of utility to ergonomics.

I am a bit more in the extremes camp. I like a good shoulder mount fully featured no add-ons unibody that is always ready to shoot, and I like the small Zcam or mirrorless cameras that are small enough to carry anywhere, have great image quality and yet still big enough to function manually.

Cameras like the Canon C and Red DSMC, or FS700 etc, that were never really useful by themselves without rigging, were never my preference. Of course, it helps that DSMC and C can fit onto a gimbal with ease. There is no doubt about the form factor's usefulness, but it really is a lump of clay until the user starts adding things. But they were too small for shoulder, unless one added a long body rails with a counter weight, and they were too big for handheld and fatigue set in rather quickly.

The Komodo size is much more manageable, as I think it crosses that awkward size and is now in the juuuuust right world. That size still has all the modularity of the C and DSMC bodies, but can also run handheld better.

A goPro goes down into the too small for manual control.
 
James0b57 said:
It does feel like cameras sizes go in ranges of utility to ergonomics.

I am a bit more in the extremes camp. I like a good shoulder mount fully featured no add-ons unibody that is always ready to shoot, and I like the small Zcam or mirrorless cameras that are small enough to carry anywhere, have great image quality and yet still big enough to function manually.

Cameras like the Canon C and Red DSMC, or FS700 etc, that were never really useful by themselves without rigging, were never my preference. Of course, it helps that DSMC and C can fit onto a gimbal with ease. There is no doubt about the form factor's usefulness, but it really is a lump of clay until the user starts adding things. But they were too small for shoulder, unless one added a long body rails with a counter weight, and they were too big for handheld and fatigue set in rather quickly.

The Komodo size is much more manageable, as I think it crosses that awkward size and is now in the juuuuust right world. That size still has all the modularity of the C and DSMC bodies, but can also run handheld better.

A goPro goes down into the too small for manual control.
Click to expand...

I think we're more or less on the same page with camera bodies... I love my P2 VariCam more than anything, to shoot with, and I'm digging the Komodo idea. The C300 was/is small and designed to be used striped down, but I more or less hate the body and actually shooting with it. Even though I love the image. I think it's because the Komodo is an actual tiny cube and not just a small camera that they tried to sculpt into something(C300), so you'll be able to add some things to make it suitable to your style, but it will still be very tiny and you can sling it around and grab the quick shots you want. I'm envisioning a side handle on the right, a good VF or small monitor(not really my ideal way to shoot, though...), a good prime or small light zoom and a sphere to grab/brace with on the left near the lens. I think it's one of the reasons that my F55 is so much easier to shoot with built-up than my C300. It's a lot more modular(square/cube) and therefore much easier to build and rig. Besides lacking reliable audio in, the only thing REALLY missing for me, so far with the Komodo, is built-in ND. But there are two decent solutions for that. 1) Canon adapter and 2) Kipertie. The kipertie actually seems a little more appealing right now, because it works like I'm used to, it has four slots, so you can go CLEAR, 2 stops, 4 stops and 6 stops(or other permutations of available ND, but 0, 2, 4, 6 is what I'm used to). I think the Canon VND starts at almost 2 stops, so you have to either always have that in or nothing(Clear) and then swap. Not ideal when running around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top