independent

100% agree, cameras do behave differently and people should know their cameras. I'm just addressing erroneous ideas about latitude. Based on cineD's test, Gunther could/should have exposed lower for a more balanced over/under to help avoid confusion; some people are interpreting that as the Komodo only having 1 stop overexposure latitude...period? No. He just used 60% EV as an arbitrary reference to show that the camera had 7 stops latitude. If he had exposed it as CVP (or anybody else) would, his results would "look" more balanced (+3/-3) to uninformed readers. 

Yeah, RED cameras including the Komodo are quite different in terms of Native ISOs and how data is allocated off the sensor. ISO 800 is not a native ISO, it's just a starting point for exposure strategy.  ISO is more like a LUT to help the shooter expose properly. For example, shoot at lower ISOs in low light (to protect shadows) and higher ISOs in brighter scenes (to protect highlights)

For example, if something is just under clipping at ISO 400, you can bump your ISO to 3200 and the image still won't clip. The image will LOOK brighter, but you can check your exposure using false color, goal posts and stop lights to see how data is being distributed and what's happening in the highlights and shadows. This is different from other cameras where you raise ISO to increase gain. 

All this can seem counterintuitive when comparing w/ other cameras, which I guess is why there's so much confusion. 

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Sure in a studio environment on a tripod, run n gun, moving from scene to scene, changing lens quickly. Try doing sports, running around shooting your 3 year old son outdoors not so easy.

That is the reason you Should shoot raw so you Can recover mistakes, but if you don't have the ability to recover than not the best tool to be using. The Komodo does not sound like the best overall option then. Who wants to worry about having to do perfect exposures all the time.

Perfect exposure is very different from overexposing or underexposing by two stops. If you just look at your monitor, viewfinder, or LCD, you wouldn't make such gross exposure errors. For example, if you were shooting your kid outdoors, two stops overexposed, the image would look obviously blown out.

Anyways, CineD has made some mistakes with their tests, especially the Komodo and not understanding how the Komodo retains and recovers highlights. Also for their latitude test, they also chose to expose hot for the Komodo (a mistake), which led to those skewed results. CVP exposed more sensibly and got 3 stops over and 3 stops under, a more balanced result for latitude. 

“Super controlled environment?” If you have any monitoring tools or even any modern LCD screen, you can clearly see when you are over or underexposed. It would be painfully obvious. Have you recently shot two stops over or under and not realize it?

14 hours ago, M_Williams said:

The Komodo has pretty terrible highlight latitude. It's definitely a camera that's better to underexpose than overexpose. I think CineD found it was good with 7 stops of underexposure but only 1 stop over. It's quite extreme and the main reason I don't care for the camera. Exceptional highlight latitude is a hallmark of film (as in, actual film).

Protecting the highlights is something you should do for every digital video camera. What kind of extreme situations or incompetent DP would make such gross exposure errors? Latitude matters much less than dynamic range and highlight roll-off, where the Komodo leads significantly. 

Oh man, the Red One. I learned to operate with it, and while it was sometimes quite a bitch to work with, no question how amazing it was for digital. Truly groundbreaking. Saved up to buy the Scarlet as a wet hire, switched to Blackmagic and Canon for more commercial work, and now I'm back on Red because they priced it right. 

If you're into the Red One, you already know the answer. Komodo. 6K 16-bit redcode raw and global shutter will give you the most detailed, color-rich, film-like moving image. 

While this forum is centered more around hybrid, consumer cameras, discussions lean almost 99% video. Probably because what people want are accessible cinema cameras. Well, we've never gotten a pro cinema camera within reach until the Komodo.

Rumors are canon rumors is going to Spotify. (C1)

23 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:

I understand the confidence RED camera makes for both its owner and the clients. Its like wedding photography that people think big DSLR like 1DX makes their once-in-lifetime photos look magazine-level professional! So even when the photographer knows a prosumer small camera is perfectly fine for the job, he or she invests in the most expensive body, to tell everyone in the party: "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing". 

Well you're committing several logical errors. You're implying that it's not important for the owner to have confidence in his own gear or gain the client's confidence. I'd say both assumptions are wrong. Second, a prosumer small camera may be fine for filming your cousin's fourth wedding during a pandemic. However, in any real paid gig, any pro would know the practical benefits of professional equipment. 

And there are practical reasons for Red or Arri's reputation. For the Komodo, Redcode Raw is accessible at a competitive price point, which distinguishes it from cameras that largely share the same feature set. 

But it's not a hybrid camera, which makes the R5/C or R3 compelling choices depending on the situation. But there's nothing wrong with using your GH3 to shoot your cousin's wedding. Hope she made you a plate.

All these contemporary cameras are more similar than different. In nearly every case, practical concerns of the endeavor will, or should, determine your choice. 

At some point, we're all just arguing over how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.

The correct answer of course is just one fallen angel, the Komodo. 

Canon is making good enough cameras so far. It's a cutthroat business and making shitty cameras isn't going to help.

We're not getting better cameras if say Sony was the only game in the town. Innovation is incentivized through competition, and the improvement in camera tech over the past 10 years has been nothing short of astounding. 

Lastly, not sure why so many are emotional. Pretense of certain obligations? Companies have to abide by consumer protection laws, but none are obligated to fulfill your personal idea of a perfect camera that violates all patents that's infinitely future proof with unlimited upgrades with a lifetime warranty.

A company's aim is to sell you something. If you don't like it, don't buy. 

27 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

Agreed. The global shutter kills it. I've seen some crazy jello in 60fps on the C70. I think this might be partially due to Long GOP compression only.

True, but there's something beyond jello...I hate to pop open a can of "motion cadence," but I've inadvertently noticed something smoother about the Komodo's image during camera movement than that of the R5 in even 8K raw (and others, but that's my other camera right now).

It's almost that the pixels are somewhat dancing/moving/winking in the rolling shutter, whereas the Komodo's image seems more stable, even during handheld moving shots. All this contributes to less of a video look. But the R5 is outstanding in static shots or very slow controlled movement.

1 hour ago, Django said:

Canon claims the Raw update on C70 will unlock the full DR potential from the sensor so maybe expect an extra stop.

DGO sensor also does wonders for shadow noise so its a whole different exposure method (to the left) and has much better shadow recovery.

IIRC the c300iii also measured 13 stops among online tests using the Xylophone charts, so maybe that's the top. But yeah with raw you can always fight for a fraction buried in the noise floor 

Why compare clog 2 with clog? 

Still think Komodo has it. 

Global shutter and Recode Raw > Canon Raw.  That patent, may it burn in hell, is still doing its job.

C70 should have 13 stops of dynamic range, R5/R5c should have around 12 w/ log 2/3 (right?)

Raw is a great addition to the C70, but man, poor C300iii owners. Canon is reshuffling the deck, squeezing some more juice out of lower-end models that sell rather than protecting their pro cinema lines. 

But I guess C300iv RF, 6K S35? Gotta leave a little room for the C500iii RF 8K DGO. 

CVP shows that the dual iso also occurs in the R5. Strangely, the R5c has noticeable more chroma noise. Maybe they didn’t black balance.

Neither ND nor IBIS? That’s a misstep. Not sure I buy the omission due to heat; there’s a…fan.

Hmm, pro monitoring tools (false color, WF) are ostensibly absent in the leaked specs...not good.

They should be featured considering the R5C is a c-line cinema camera that needs to fit within a pro workflow. One of the dealbreakers of the Sony FX-3

Yeah, on the heels of a pretty good year, relatively speaking, I think Canon is frontrunning the supply shortages and the decline of the overall camera market

Canon will continue to make some newer EF lenses as long as there's demand, especially with holes in the RF lineup. I've had backorders come through in the past two months.

By the way, the 35mm 1.4 II is the finest EF lens ever...like a Zeiss Otus 35mm w/ AF. I'll be sad when the RF replacement comes, because I do prefer the aesthetics of EF lenses. Better finish, less prone to scuffing, and a nicer ergonomic design. The RF lenses feel like girthy unwashed street bangers in hand.

Not obsessed, I think it has a lot to do with the network effect of EF lenses, which are compatible with all Canon and Blackmagic cameras. Many upgrade or rent R-bodies to use with their existing EF lenses. 

It’s just cheaper and easier using EF than investing in a different system such as e-mount, despite some gems there. EF is ubiquitous at rental houses in NY.

Red’s strategy (and success) with the Komodo can be attributed at least partially to the RF mount. I own the Komodo and the R5, and I can use the same lenses with the c300iii/c500ii we rent.

I like the Fx3/fx6 but they don’t fit.  

On 9/15/2021 at 12:29 AM, Chrad said:

Mark my words: this won't happen. People aren't making TikToks instead of traditional film content because they were waiting for the right technology to roll around to decide it's worth doing. If the incredible democratization of filmmaking technology we've seen over the past couple of decades wasn't enough to get them involved already, they lacked the time, energy, or interest. The truth is we who are interested in traditional filmmaking are part of a shrinking demographic.

So much wrong with this. First of all, "this" IS happening. We are all witnessing a major shift on social media platforms from photography to video. Why? Simple: storytelling. 

Second, "waiting for the right technology" is missing the point. Human beings will mess around with things to create (See: 2001: A Space Odyssey). Apple is putting these filmmaking tools that nobody asked for into their iPhones and people WILL start using them. 

Intent doesn't matter. Steve Jobs didn't plan on iPhones revolutionizing the world through social media. Nobody intended phones to be used to disrupt the hegemony of traditional media corporations. But the technology was there. And out of a billion people, a good number will eventually start using them. Mess around enough, some kid from nowhereistan will make the best film of the year.

And you're mistaken about the democratization of filmmaking tech. First of all, traditional filmmaking is far, far still prohibitive for most people. You're still spending thousands - at least tens of thousands of dollars to make even a watchable short film. And by you, I mean you, trust fund kid who wants to make movies but have shit stories that doesn't resonate with any normal people.

So it is all about technology, in the same way that camera phones, inferior as they are, have disrupted the professional photography industry. 

And it's not just about the camera. It's about technologies (both hard and soft) that will reduce the need for gear and crew and any other prohibitive costs that have otherwise prevented billions of people on this planet from making their own movies, telling their own stories. Not cat videos, TikTok clips, or dick pics. But stories. That hasn't happened yet. But it will.

The obvious trajectory of this evolution is for ONE PERSON to tell a STORY, as we have always done for thousands of years. Except this time, millions will be gathered around the fire to hear the best ones.

Last year: Dolby Vision, LiDar, and IBIS.

This year:

Cinematic Mode: Continuous AF. Face-tracking. Auto-subject shifting. Rack Focusing. Changing focus/bokeh. 

These aren't consumer technologies, and most iPhone users will not use them (aside from touch-to-focus). Why bother?

Pros certainly won't use iPhones (not yet). But everybody else—in the near future. Apple is putting tremendous effort into laying the groundwork to crowdsource quality content. Offering these features that nobody asked for in the hands of millions? We are going to start seeing iPhone-generated narrative/reality/doc content (not TikTok videos) to hit the mainstream. Very soon.

For what? To sell more iPhones? Nah, that's a flatlined market. 

A capture-to-delivery scenario would likely be end game. Digital services, cloud, etc. is more important. I imagine there will be added incentives for users to deliver not to YouTube (google) but Apple TV. The ecosystem is more important. The Apple walled garden must grow, even if it be watered by your peasant blood.

Build it, and the mortal fools will come. This is the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

Atomos firmware for 8k prores raw was just released for the Canon R5. Looks like overheating is greatly diminished (not recording internally) and 5K raw modes available. Damn son

5 hours ago, herein2020 said:

I think its great, I use the XLR module with the S5 all the time for quick sound bites such as a real estate agent doing the intro voice over, modelling interviews, product reviews from YouTube content creators, etc. I almost never need more than one channel, two at the most and all of my higher quality mics are XLR.  I can also shoot long form such as speeches, conferences, etc and the whole setup is still more compact than my C200.

 

I have the MixPre6 and its a PITA, it needs another power source, just remembering how to set it up properly is a PITA since I rarely use it, and now you've got cables everywhere, etc.  I only use the MixPre when I need 32bit float, more than 2 channels, or multiple backup copies of the audio.

Try a mixpre 3 if you only need 2-3 channels; it would sit real nice on your cage. The 6 belongs in a bag. I do agree with the problem of "cables everywhere," which is why I think regardless of what mixer/recorder you have attached to your camera, more than a couple inputs ends up inescapably a mess. 

If it gets more complicated, it's more practical to focus on getting quality audio that can be effectively monitored and instead feed timecode or a sync track to the camera. 

Unless you're a one-man band live-streaming run-and-gun reality. Then ok, maybe