RED Komodo to start limited shipping soon for $6k

combatentropy said:
When Canon released the C300, they said at ISO 12800 it had the same noise as 35mm film, which is fine by me. I'm sure the C300 was applying ample noise reduction at that point, though.

In the tests by Tim Daust, the cameras looked fine to me up to 12800, probably cleaner than 35mm film. It's hard to tell through Youtube compression, though.

DISCLAIMER: I don't do this anymore for a living and am not worried about pleasing clients, some of whom may be allergic to the slightest speck.
Click to expand...

When I got my original C300, I remember thinking how ridiculously clean ISO 6400 was, considering it was ISO 6400. Kicks my F55 in the balls, even today, in low-light. Over ISO 3200 on the 55 and it can be a mess.
 
Run&Gun said:
When I got my original C300, I remember thinking how ridiculously clean ISO 6400 was, considering it was ISO 6400. Kicks my F55 in the balls, even today, in low-light. Over ISO 3200 on the 55 and it can be a mess.
Click to expand...

Weren't Canon's iso numbers inflated at that time? Like iso6400 on a Canon was about the same as iso4000 on some other brand?
 
I remember after the C300 came out, a producer said to me, "this camera is great because now we dont have to light"
 
I am just spoiled by cameras like the FX9, that looked wonderful at ISO 4,000. I defintely lit for it but the only shorter lens I had to shoot interviews with was the Sony FE PZ 28-135 G OSS f/4.0 servo zoom and f/4.0 is a good target for general exposure
but I only brought my Aputure LS-1S panels, key through a Chimera and fill through a diffusion disc. The ISO 4000 mode looked great with the lens wide open at f/4.0. I understand with REDs why most besides the Gemini aren't low light cameras but the
Komodo, for the market that will buy and use it, I wish it was more light sensitve like the Gemini.
 
puredrifting said:
I am just spoiled by cameras like the FX9, that looked wonderful at ISO 4,000. I defintely lit for it but the only shorter lens I had to shoot interviews with was the Sony FE PZ 28-135 G OSS f/4.0 servo zoom and f/4.0 is a good target for general exposure
but I only brought my Aputure LS-1S panels, key through a Chimera and fill through a diffusion disc. The ISO 4000 mode looked great with the lens wide open at f/4.0. I understand with REDs why most besides the Gemini aren't low light cameras but the
Komodo, for the market that will buy and use it, I wish it was more light sensitve like the Gemini.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Fx9 and C500ii make jumping up in iso's rather painless. Especially nice when working with a T3 or god forbid F4 lens. Haha.
 
puredrifting said:
I defintely lit for it [...] but I only brought my Aputure LS-1S panels, key through a Chimera and fill through a diffusion disc.
Click to expand...

I agree with that too. ahalpert mentioned a producer who said, "now we don't have to light". While ambient light sometimes works out, it often does not, especially for getting light into the eyes. On the flipside, I dislike overcomplicated lighting. The standard three-point lighting often looks distracting and artificial to me, especially if they get all fancy with multicolored lights and obvious gobos. I love the one-light look, like in Ken Burns documentaries (although I know that doesn't mean they used one light). I think Gordon Willis sought simplicity but in a precise way. Simple doesn't mean easy. Often it's harder. I think if I were to define the technique that produces the look I like a lot it would be: a single soft source, heavily flagged.
 
James0b57 said:
Weren't Canon's iso numbers inflated at that time? Like iso6400 on a Canon was about the same as iso4000 on some other brand?
Click to expand...

Yeah, if I remember correctly the C300 was about a stop less sensitive than they claimed. So 6400 ISO was basically the same as 3200 ISO on the Sony F3 (which was rated accurately).

I sometimes wonder if that’s why Sony pulled the same trick on the F5 and F55, claiming they were more sensitive than they actually were?
 
Grug said:
Yeah, if I remember correctly the C300 was about a stop less sensitive than they claimed. So 6400 ISO was basically the same as 3200 ISO on the Sony F3 (which was rated accurately).

I sometimes wonder if that’s why Sony pulled the same trick on the F5 and F55, claiming they were more sensitive than they actually were?
Click to expand...

I still always thought the C300 was a much better/cleaner low-light camera than the F55.
 
combatentropy said:
I agree with that too. ahalpert mentioned a producer who said, "now we don't have to light". While ambient light sometimes works out, it often does not, especially for getting light into the eyes. On the flipside, I dislike overcomplicated lighting. The standard three-point lighting often looks distracting and artificial to me, especially if they get all fancy with multicolored lights and obvious gobos. I love the one-light look, like in Ken Burns documentaries (although I know that doesn't mean they used one light). I think Gordon Willis sought simplicity but in a precise way. Simple doesn't mean easy. Often it's harder. I think if I were to define the technique that produces the look I like a lot it would be: a single soft source, heavily flagged.
Click to expand...

One of the doc shows I used to shoot on, while the background was often lit to the N-th degree, the subject was just a single key. No hair/edge or fill. You can have great looking interviews with no artificial lighting and you can have horrible looking ones with 10 lights. It just all depends...
 
Grug said:
Yeah, if I remember correctly the C300 was about a stop less sensitive than they claimed. So 6400 ISO was basically the same as 3200 ISO on the Sony F3 (which was rated accurately).

I sometimes wonder if that’s why Sony pulled the same trick on the F5 and F55, claiming they were more sensitive than they actually were?
Click to expand...

Very likely. I believe higher iso was all the rage at that time.
 
Grug said:
I sometimes wonder if that’s why Sony pulled the same trick on the F5 and F55, claiming they were more sensitive than they actually were?
Click to expand...

The F55 was always 640/800 to me. 1250 Native ? Psshhh. 1600 was pushing it....It’s noise was so ugly....it got offensive very quickly.

I found that Venice falls of a similar cliff eventually...same signature noise....there’s something not very nice about that sony noise once it shows up... Alexa noise seems to be less....ugly.

JB
 
Hmmm, have seen the F55 at iso2000, and felt it was workable, in particular downsampled to 2K (which is what an Alexa is doing anyway). But would agree about the grain.

Alexa is one of the few sensors where grain was a part of the design. F35 got some nice grain, likely the 6 site RGB stripe pixel structure and perhaps CCD tech.

With RED's, I feel tungsten vs daylight can really change the usable DR/iso range. In tungsten, that blue channel can get starved a little earlier, and may some ugly looks at iso's above 1600. Whereas in daylight, I feel the Gemini outdoes the C500ii in DR. Which is kind of impressive, considering it is s35 to Canon's FF35.


Seems like most modern cine cams can handle iso1600.


Feels like we have reached the glass ceiling with CMOS though. We aren't seeing any improvements beyond the basic benchmark that Alexa hit early on. Definitely seeing improvements, but not really shifting the landscape. Considering that smaller photo site cameras are clean enough to compare with larger photosite cameras. And DGO of early and late cameras has not been surpassed. not in a decade anyway. and cameras 5years before that weren't tremendously far behind.

but we get it:
Arri not competing with BM
Sony competes with BM
 
James0b57 said:
Hmmm, have seen the F55 at iso2000, and felt it was workable, in particular downsampled to 2K (which is what an Alexa is doing anyway). But would agree about the grain.

Alexa is one of the few sensors where grain was a part of the design. F35 got some nice grain, likely the 6 site RGB stripe pixel structure and perhaps CCD tech.

With RED's, I feel tungsten vs daylight can really change the usable DR/iso range. In tungsten, that blue channel can get starved a little earlier, and may some ugly looks at iso's above 1600. Whereas in daylight, I feel the Gemini outdoes the C500ii in DR. Which is kind of impressive, considering it is s35 to Canon's FF35.


Seems like most modern cine cams can handle iso1600.


Feels like we have reached the glass ceiling with CMOS though. We aren't seeing any improvements beyond the basic benchmark that Alexa hit early on. Definitely seeing improvements, but not really shifting the landscape. Considering that smaller photo site cameras are clean enough to compare with larger photosite cameras. And DGO of early and late cameras has not been surpassed. not in a decade anyway. and cameras 5years before that weren't tremendously far behind.
Click to expand...

You can't cheat the physics of silicon as far as light sensitivity is concerned. The noise floor of the related circuitry and support electronics has improved by at least two orders of magnitude since the turn of the century though. Quite frankly at my age an 800 ISO camera sees better in the dark than I do. Not really a fan of these uber high ISO's. Optimum exposure for the base sensitivity of the sensor or lower produces a richer image.

Here are some skin tone comparos between Gemini and Komodo shot on a commercial shoot. All at 250 ISO under controlled lighting conditions.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top