G
Guest
Guest
Alright, I am done talking about this camera until I get to use it, and even then, maybe not.
RED Komodo to start limited shipping soon for $6k
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Pfister won for Inception and was nominated for The Dark Knight. Nothing for the Dark Night Rises.
Of Inception, I read: "The film was shot on anamorphic 35mm with key sequences filmed on 65mm, and certain other sequences with VistaVision but Nolan did not shoot any footage with IMAX cameras as he had with The Dark Knight."
Dark Knight used about 30 minutes of IMAX footage. Rises used about 72.
I felt like Dark Knight Rises was full of a lot of static tableaux. Maybe that had nothing to do with the camera, but I made a connection to it.
My gut feels like when people shoot on a medium they think has superior IQ, there's more of a tendency to hold the shot to breathe in the color quality.
G
Guest
Guest
I thought 'Dark Knight" was only select scenes shot in IMAX, as well. The Bank robbery scene in the beginning, etc.
And yes, he won for 'Inception', and was nominated for 'Dark Knight'. Thanks for clarifying.
What I was asking you earlier, was what your opinion of "interesting" camera work was. Because interesting can be a lot of things when it tells the story well.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah I have nothing against static or slow-moving shots at all. I just dont want to be bored. I felt bored in Rises and not in Dark Knight, but I don't remember where exactly.
Obviously camera movement is married to action and doesn't happen in a vacuum. Some of the greatest shots of all time are static. But I really love Chivo's long, evolving camera moves (Gravity, Birdman, Children of Men). They give me a really liberated feeling and open up a lot of cinematic storytelling possibilities.
On the Revenant (which I have yet to see unfortunately), he used a mix of 65mm and 35mm cameras. Apparently they carried the Alexa M in backpacks for handheld work. And apparently they abandoned shooting on film (which was in the mix) partway through production because the digital cameras were easier to work with and provided adequate IQ. It's that type of thinking that's best, in my opinion, where you let your camerawork dictate the medium you use and not the other way around. No point in chasing a marginal increase in IQ if you end up with a more boring shot altogether.
http://soc.org/project/the-revenant-shooting-in-the-elements/
Obviously camera movement is married to action and doesn't happen in a vacuum. Some of the greatest shots of all time are static. But I really love Chivo's long, evolving camera moves (Gravity, Birdman, Children of Men). They give me a really liberated feeling and open up a lot of cinematic storytelling possibilities.
On the Revenant (which I have yet to see unfortunately), he used a mix of 65mm and 35mm cameras. Apparently they carried the Alexa M in backpacks for handheld work. And apparently they abandoned shooting on film (which was in the mix) partway through production because the digital cameras were easier to work with and provided adequate IQ. It's that type of thinking that's best, in my opinion, where you let your camerawork dictate the medium you use and not the other way around. No point in chasing a marginal increase in IQ if you end up with a more boring shot altogether.
http://soc.org/project/the-revenant-shooting-in-the-elements/
4k/60 Prores scaled from the full sensor, at least via SDI out. I believe that capability is included in the spec. May also be part of the internal Prores option. All of that is still kind of in flux until specs are locked, But scaling and writing 10 bit 4:2:2 Prores vs cropping, compressing, and writing 16 bit raw may be a valid processing tradeoff.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't think it can read the full sensor faster than 40fps.
And re:autofocus - it "has" autofocus. I think it would take years for RED to match Canon/Sony AF capabilities, and only with an adequate research budget. (Could I be wrong?)
Lastly, yes - it is a very attractive camera. I just dont think it makes sense to me from a business perspective. I dont think client demand will be there, and I could get nearly-as-good (less dr, no gs) 6k raw from a pocket. I think this only makes sense as a RED b-cam or if you need the best RAW you can get under $10k, or if you really need GS.
It would be a perfect camera if it were branded Sony or Canon and recorded 60fps 4k compressed from the full sensor. The C300III might be close to perfect, speaking from an owner/op business perspective
NorBro
Major Contributor
I thought you wanted a marketable camera? I know some of your people require one and only one, but in the grand scheme I think the RED would pique more overall interest in New York City.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think Komodo will find a home for indy low-budget stuff where there isn't much money to be made.
For commercial/narrative/MV, I think RED is in demand, but they'll want slow-motion and higher-end cameras. If I were a producer, Komodo could be a good fit for me to deliver the goods to people who don't know what camera I use. But as an owner/op?
Corporate/doc is typically the sector that requires a specific camera from me, typically the C300mk2 or FS7 (sometimes either). They don't want RAW typically due to data storage, turnaround time, or post-production costs. Komodo shoots prores - but they'll probably see it as a RAW camera, which is why I said it would do better with different branding. If they do upsell their client and go RAW, it will probably be with a DSMC2 camera since they're splashing more money.
I don't know any of this for a fact, but this is more or less my experience with the Scarlet and my conversations with producers more recently.
The C300iii, on the other hand, shoots 4K120p no crop in a compressed codec. Internal ND, audio, EVF. And RAW as a bonus
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
A catch-22 client world...
One may request a Helium with the production module, a sidekick, an ultra-brite and a skin tone-highlight OLPF...while another client may say, "Oh, RED?...that's a RAW camera - no, thank you."
C300 is also S35, but maybe that's okay and FF isn't of interest anymore.
One may request a Helium with the production module, a sidekick, an ultra-brite and a skin tone-highlight OLPF...while another client may say, "Oh, RED?...that's a RAW camera - no, thank you."
C300 is also S35, but maybe that's okay and FF isn't of interest anymore.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Haha yes hard to please everyone.
I like full-frame but I doubt the difference from S35 is that important to many. Maybe the better low-light is good for doc? But so is having a bit more DOF. I doubt anyone will be upselling their client saying "oh but this one is FULL frame." Meanwhile the C300III is appreciably cheaper and shoots 120fps with similar or more DS. I guess there's the whole more resolution thing. But once you care about more than 4K, you might be wanting a DSMC2. (Maybe that will change?)
The FX9 will be quite popular too I'm sure. But I think cameramen will gravitate to the C300III for no-crop 60p, 120fps, and raw. Those who aren't already invested in sony, that is.
But it's all a moot point for me as I'll likely keep my FS7. 4k60p camera that will probably remain relevant. And maybe get an A7SIII to "match" with it. And I don't even like Sony. If the demand is hugely higher for the C300III I will sell FS7 and move that way.
I like full-frame but I doubt the difference from S35 is that important to many. Maybe the better low-light is good for doc? But so is having a bit more DOF. I doubt anyone will be upselling their client saying "oh but this one is FULL frame." Meanwhile the C300III is appreciably cheaper and shoots 120fps with similar or more DS. I guess there's the whole more resolution thing. But once you care about more than 4K, you might be wanting a DSMC2. (Maybe that will change?)
The FX9 will be quite popular too I'm sure. But I think cameramen will gravitate to the C300III for no-crop 60p, 120fps, and raw. Those who aren't already invested in sony, that is.
But it's all a moot point for me as I'll likely keep my FS7. 4k60p camera that will probably remain relevant. And maybe get an A7SIII to "match" with it. And I don't even like Sony. If the demand is hugely higher for the C300III I will sell FS7 and move that way.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
Unless you're buying a bunch or E mount lenses, what do you mean "invested in Sony"? I own Panasonic, Canon and Sony. And if I buy a Komodo(RED), it doesn't make a difference that I have Sony. Or Canon. Or Panasonic.
I guess I look at it like cameras are cameras. I buy what I need/want/is going to make me money/generate business/be in-demand. I guess what I'm saying is, who cares if you have an Fs7 or FX9 or Amira, if there is demand for 'camera x' and you can make money and generate work by owning it, the cameras you already own don't preclude you from buying another brand.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
By invested in Sony, I largely mean E-mount lenses. I have almost all EF lenses and have adapted them to Panasonic and Sony cameras in addition to Canons. But once you start playing with AF it's no longer a smooth adaptation. Then you're talking batteries, media, other accessories. Switching to a C300III from an FS7 can be much more expensive than upgrading to an FX9.
Sure, you can own multiple cameras. But that gets expensive and depending on what and how many you own you may be better off just owning one more expensive camera. The economics can be tricky although not interesting from e creative standpoint.
Sure, you can own multiple cameras. But that gets expensive and depending on what and how many you own you may be better off just owning one more expensive camera. The economics can be tricky although not interesting from e creative standpoint.
There is a post on the Red User forum that quotes Jarred Land (the main Red geezer) as saying the AF on the Komodo won't be amazing, or as good as the Canon cameras, which for my run n' gun work is not good enough. Looking more like I'm swinging towards the C300 mk3. I played with some Canon raw light files and they hold up really well and they're no problem to work with in Resolve.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I think it'll be one-time AF with no tracking on only EF lenses at launch. RF support to follow
NorBro
Major Contributor
You (I think) said something the other day about Canon and Sony being way ahead of RED in terms of AF R&D which is of course true, but it's very interesting to see what they could do with this as they are not a Japanese company tied to/with anyone.
Blackmagic (one-push AF) and ARRI haven't tried.
Blackmagic (one-push AF) and ARRI haven't tried.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
My gut instinct is that if it were easier to program these AF features, that more companies and cameras would have done it sooner. Maybe it was just a matter of hardware/computer capability, but it has taken years for Canon/Sony AF to evolve to what they are. And I'm sure some of those capabilities are dependent on specific hardware built into the cameras.
But the big thing is that they have a bigger customer base of photographers whose number one priority for decades has been autofocus. Once you develop the fast-response autofocus with object-, face- and eye-tracking, all you need to do is adapt the transition behavior to better suit video recording. RED doesn't have that photography customer base incentive, so it's hard for me to believe they would invest a comparable portion of their development budget into those features. And they're a smaller company.
Maybe they'll just proceed slowly and in 5-10 years they'll have something good, too, and then be able to implement it forever. Or maybe my assumptions are wrong and they'll deliver the best video AF of all since their number one focus is video.
But the big thing is that they have a bigger customer base of photographers whose number one priority for decades has been autofocus. Once you develop the fast-response autofocus with object-, face- and eye-tracking, all you need to do is adapt the transition behavior to better suit video recording. RED doesn't have that photography customer base incentive, so it's hard for me to believe they would invest a comparable portion of their development budget into those features. And they're a smaller company.
Maybe they'll just proceed slowly and in 5-10 years they'll have something good, too, and then be able to implement it forever. Or maybe my assumptions are wrong and they'll deliver the best video AF of all since their number one focus is video.
NorBro
Major Contributor
AF is something I've spent a lot of time with and have a passion for.
Many, many cameras early in my career because it was something, the only thing in my life that I was certain was going to be the future.
It was too wonderful of a concept to not be utilized...having a machine focus for you with a very large sensor in motion pictures.
___
Canon's DPAF was introduced in the 70D in 2013 and worked pretty good right out of the gate...just that it was on a pixel-binned, line-skipped DSLR.
Moving forward it was limited on some cameras in 60p (meaning no DPAF @60p) and eventually made its way to the golden goose 1DX Mark II, which was the world's first best AF camera. (Later arguably improved by the 5D Mark IV with more AF coverage.)
Sony's first real AF camera was the a6300 from 2016...three years after Canon, but actually the same year as the 1DX Mark II if considering 4K.
I have been saying for many years that I think the video AF technology that is going into the photography cameras appears to be different than the cinema cameras and it's been proven to me, at least visually, several times.
Since then both companies approved as expected, but those improvements mostly came in speed control and face-tracking.
I used to provide the benefit of the doubt to companies and would call DLD crazy (whom I provide credit for enlightening me), but the final straw was Fujifilm breaking their AF on the X-T3 with a firmware update.
All this to say that I think any of these companies could truly have whatever they would like, but there is no doubt in my mind (and this is my opinion and not a fact) that a Japanese business relationship exists between these companies and they control every little thing they offer to us.
Another example can be made in IBIS...there is really no reason on God's green earth why Panasonic is the only company that has usable video IBIS (besides Olympus who doesn't really make video-focused mirrorless cameras).
Many, many cameras early in my career because it was something, the only thing in my life that I was certain was going to be the future.
It was too wonderful of a concept to not be utilized...having a machine focus for you with a very large sensor in motion pictures.
___
Canon's DPAF was introduced in the 70D in 2013 and worked pretty good right out of the gate...just that it was on a pixel-binned, line-skipped DSLR.
Moving forward it was limited on some cameras in 60p (meaning no DPAF @60p) and eventually made its way to the golden goose 1DX Mark II, which was the world's first best AF camera. (Later arguably improved by the 5D Mark IV with more AF coverage.)
Sony's first real AF camera was the a6300 from 2016...three years after Canon, but actually the same year as the 1DX Mark II if considering 4K.
I have been saying for many years that I think the video AF technology that is going into the photography cameras appears to be different than the cinema cameras and it's been proven to me, at least visually, several times.
Since then both companies approved as expected, but those improvements mostly came in speed control and face-tracking.
I used to provide the benefit of the doubt to companies and would call DLD crazy (whom I provide credit for enlightening me), but the final straw was Fujifilm breaking their AF on the X-T3 with a firmware update.
All this to say that I think any of these companies could truly have whatever they would like, but there is no doubt in my mind (and this is my opinion and not a fact) that a Japanese business relationship exists between these companies and they control every little thing they offer to us.
Another example can be made in IBIS...there is really no reason on God's green earth why Panasonic is the only company that has usable video IBIS (besides Olympus who doesn't really make video-focused mirrorless cameras).