Image links fixed...

[Jannard]

over at CML.

Jim

[tonacidigital]

cool. been dying to check out the magical redcode image vs raw.

[Chris Kenny]

The bad news is the Redcode image (bottom) is rather softer:

http://www.nicedissolve.com/images/redcode.png

That's a 100% crop. Particularly take a look at the eyelashes of the near eye, the skin texture, and the hair texture.

Here's a version desaturated and severely pushed to pull out the differences in skin texture and some other artifacts:

http://www.nicedissolve.com/images/redcode2.png

The good news is, it's pretty hard to spot these differences unless your face is 3" from your monitor or you're zoomed in quite a lot (or you push the footage unreasonably). Also, if you look at the lash on the far eye, silhouetted against the green screen, it seems to hold up pretty well, as do edges in general, which leads me to think the footage should still be very easy to key. I'm going to try that next.

Also, from the file names, it looks like this was compressed 16:1. I believe the compression ratio for the production camera will be more like 10:1 or 12:1.

From what I'm seeing, I don't intend to change my plans to shoot Redcode pretty much all the time. On-board 4K recording is really a remarkable achievement.

Edit: Yup, still keys very nicely. Here's a Keylight key in Shake (no tweaking other than sampling the screen color, 100% crop):

http://www.nicedissolve.com/images/key2.jpg

The basket mesh and the individual strands of hair survive compression just fine.

[Emanuel]

Excellent input Chris, as usual.

I agree and as you are saying, I'm asking if the RED codec wouldn't be improved until the final product. As it seems, Graeme has been doing new discoveries and these images are just part of the work in progress -- previous shot to those new finds as far as I could understand.

[Brook Willard]

http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/UCR.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/brookwillard/RCR.jpg

I know which I'll be shooting.

[laboprod]

But why the 1.5mb-redcode.tiff and the 24.1mb-noncode.tiff both are 72 MB ?

[Emanuel]

But why the 1.5mb-redcode.tiff and the 24.1mb-noncode.tiff both are 72 MB ?It's the space in disk (MB) per minute @24fps as far as I can get it.

Yes Brook. I've found the same.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4010/redcodeccll9.th.png (http://img245.imageshack.us/my.php?image=redcodeccll9.png)

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9636/redcodecc2downrezvg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It seems it can be softer but less artifacty (less artifacts) -- cleaner as it has been said as far as the REDCODE concerns (reviews). Graeme mark?

[FatBird19]

uncompressed does preserve more detail.
....but is it enough that I'd REALLY rather deal with a raid system? meh. probably not.

What if each image file were boosted from 1.5mb to 2mb? :D

[FatBird19]

so it seems to be pixels with little chroma or luminance difference that seem to lose some resolution along with sections of the image with low luminance values.

[FatBird19]

Not saying I'm disappointed though. This is the best in camera video compression ever. :D

[laboprod]

It's the space in disk (MB) per minute @24fps as far as I can get it.

Yes it is the space in disk (MB) but not per minute, just for one image.... and both compressed and uncompressed have the same size (72 MB)

[visceralpsyche]

The size is the same because the linked images have been transcoded into TIFF files which makes them identical size at identical resolution.

[baro]

I resized Chris's images to half their sizes and the uncompressed image still has clearly more detail in the textures. So if you want to work with 2K images and want to use the onboard recording option, maybe you should save 2K RGB compressed instead of 4K RAW compressed. I know that JPEG2000 (wavelet encoding) can save visually lossless 2K images at 27MB/sec (24fps), so RED wavelet should be better at 2K than RED RAW 4K scaled to 2K.

[laboprod]

The size is the same because the linked images have been transcoded into TIFF files which makes them identical size at identical resolution.

Do you mean that when exporting the REDCODE footage to image sequence like TIFF files will create a files that are 72 MBytes each, and so will be an umcompressed footage.... so what format (not coded, as the codec we know will be REDCODE) will you choose to export to in REDCINE?

antoine

[Emanuel]

Yes it is the space in disk (MB) but not per minute, just for one image.... and both compressed and uncompressed have the same size (72 MB)Understood but I thought his mention was motion picture related on the comparision between REDCODE (216Mbps = 27MB/s) and uncompressed HD options. However he mentioned MB and not GB, so I stand corrected adding the same question as you.

[Jim Arthurs]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but addresses a general tone across a number of threads...

Let's see... REDCODE is potentially a few % points softer at full 4K+ resolution which would be averaged out and vanish at a 2K finish... but still keys like a million dollars and has the bandwidth weight of a flea... and people are STILL talking uncompressed RAID as if they're not getting the goods???

In a world without RED on the near horizon, there'd be NO 4K camera that you could own, and NO compressed solution at any level for ANY camera beyond 2K... I think we need a degree of perspective here. 12 months ago most of this board was agog over the potential of the 4:2:2 HVX, and now we stand light years beyond that, and several major steps beyond ANYTHING you can buy at any price.

[John Allardice]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but addresses a general tone across a number of threads...

Let's see... REDCODE is potentially a few % points softer at full 4K+ resolution which would be averaged out and vanish at a 2K finish... but still keys like a million dollars and has the bandwidth weight of a flea... and people are STILL talking uncompressed RAID as if they're not getting the goods???

Well said Jim. Another point to remember is that REDCODE is still not finished. Graeme has already stated that the codec has been "radically improved" since those shots were done. All you gripers, give it another month or two, then if you're still not happy, good luck with those portable RAIDs.

[Emanuel]

I agree, that's what has been said and it's precisely what I and the others we all have found from the comparision.

[Justin_Kirch]

Seriously guys, I know all of you are trying to analyze the footage and such, but it's just getting old. We all know what it looks like, we all enjoy your feedback, but for the love of everyone on this board, this camera rocks and the footage shows.

[zakforrest]

Hahahahahaahahaahahaha

[Rob Lohman]

And we are still tweaking it!

[Jack_Felis]

Sheesh, I can't tell a difference between the REDCODE version and the Uncompressed version and now you're telling me that things have gotten even better? Way to go RED Team! :thumbsup:

[Graeme_Nattress]

Yes, I've managed to keep a lot more of that detail you see in the uncompressed one, at a lower bitrate too. There's a lot of magic you can do tweaking the parameters of the compression, and we're well in the middle of that, and will be, no doubt, until the camera ships.

First task was to get it "good enough", and then to get it better! We're now into the "better" stage of development, which is nice.

Graeme

[Jannard]

Graeme's work with Rob's help will prove to be as important to the RED program as the Mysterium sensor itself.

Jim

[Chris Kenny]

Graeme's work with Rob's help will prove to be as important to the RED program as the Mysterium sensor itself.

Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.

[Graeme_Nattress]

Thanks Jim. And thanks for everyone's feedback so far on the compression. What Jim doesn't tell you is that he as well as Rob has been a great help. Jim's keen photographic eye is superb for spotting little details or tell-tale signs of what is going on with an image.

Graeme

[Rob Lohman]

What can I say, such an amazing team to work with!

Okay, back to work ;)

[Emanuel]

Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.The major task IMHO.

[Y.Goh]

I think it's better to wait after the new adjustment on the sensor and algorithm to do another footage test. Graeme, thanks for all the help.

[Emanuel]

I agree.

Just other $0.2:

I asked for an outsider opinion and the answer came: that one (2nd one, the compression one) can be softer but seems more filmic (clean and without "those" any ugly artifacts which we are used to find from some digital images) if compared to the uncompressed one: more digital like the still cameras. Precisely what I read from Yuval Shrem here (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=768657&postcount=74):

I was there and was very impressed! Even though I did notice a slight difference between the Redcode compressed and uncompressed images, I thought the aesthetics of the Redcode compression looked very filmic, and even though the image was slightly less detailed (1:10 compression) in some way, I liked it better, because it seemed to have the positive effect film projection has on storytelling (vs. digital projection), in the sense that it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story. I do hope Redcode keeps improving, but I think even as it is now I would have felt more than comfortable using it (Redcode Raw) for a feature-film project with a theatrical release.

Keep up the great work!
Can't wait to seeing the next version of the codec...:thumbup:

Yuval.

A moviemaker with "that filmic eye". The same who pronounced an opinion at the first ever HVX filmout screening that I could confirm when the HVX came out. So I just request for an improved REDCODE but without a loss concerning those cinematic properties we could find from the gus station sequence.

[laboprod]

Definitely. Without Redcode, a 4K sensor would just be a way of generating a huge amount of data that most people couldn't afford to do anything with. Redcode and the post workflow are absolutely key.


Amen to that!

[tlorenzo]

I'm visualizing everyone at RED sitting in front of their computers - logging onto DVXUser to compliment eachother ;-)

[Graeme_Nattress]

I think, also, in the presentation, there's some black level differences caused by some experimental sensor processing in the compression lab software that was used to test the compression.

Graeme

[Brook Willard]

The black level issue was the only thing that I noted while viewing it. It didn't match the other shots which made it look "worse" to some. The thing is, it wasn't the compression... it just felt a little brown.

That's what's so great about this - it's all experimental.

[filmmaker1977]

what I read from Yuval Shrem here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuval Shrem
"I was there and was very impressed! Even though I did notice a slight difference between the Redcode compressed and uncompressed images, I thought the aesthetics of the Redcode compression looked very filmic, and even though the image was slightly less detailed (1:10 compression) in some way, I liked it better, because it seemed to have the positive effect film projection has on storytelling (vs. digital projection), in the sense that it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story. I do hope Redcode keeps improving, but I think even as it is now I would have felt more than comfortable using it (Redcode Raw) for a feature-film project with a theatrical release.

Keep up the great work!
Can't wait to seeing the next version of the codec...

Yuval."

emanuel said: "A moviemaker with "that filmic eye". The same who pronounced an opinion at the first ever HVX filmout screening that I could confirm when the HVX came out. So I just request for an improved REDCODE but without a loss concerning those cinematic properties we could find from the gus station sequence."

i could agree.. completely.. if yuval hadn't said: "it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story." what's this yuval?.. do you complain for a beauty image?? i thought it would be the contrary.. on the other hand, solved by actors?..

otherwise, i didn't see nobody to complain on sharpness??

but if sharpness is fake sharpness or video sharpness like the interlaced one? no thanks..

edit
the gus station trick rocked indeed.. but don't forget the sharpness artifacts free (sure), graeme! thx for that clean look.. you're my idol.. i'd change to fcp just to go with your plugins stuff if i couldn't save my money on pc side.. :D don't try to abandon us.. now though based on west you're a red revolutionist more than the typical business man.. :grin:

[Tom Marshall]

I'm visualizing everyone at RED sitting in front of their computers - logging onto DVXUser to compliment eachother ;-)

lol... they're probably taking turns on the same computer... :D

[Emanuel]

lol... they're probably taking turns on the same computer... :DIndeed! :beer: Here I have more than a few... Well, by now (yet) each one from each own computer... PC based computer! And now I wouldn't say yet but as usual and forever! :laugh: I hope!

[Yuval Shrem]

what I read from Yuval Shrem here:

i could agree.. completely.. if yuval hadn't said: "it shifts the attention away from the beauty of the image and back to the actors and the story." what's this yuval?.. do you complain for a beauty image?? i thought it would be the contrary.. on the other hand, solved by actors?..



Hi Filmmaker1977,

You must have misunderstood me.
What I said was that when you watch a film projection your attention is shifted to the actors and the story, and when you watch the same exact thing projected digitally, for some reason your attention is shifted from the actors and story and to the imagery and its aesthetics and technical quallities.
This issue by itself has nothing to do with RED or REDcode.

What I said about REDcode was that because of its aesthetics it seemed to magically have the mentioned advatanges of film-projection even when digitally projected.
This doesn't make the image less beautiful and has nothing to do with the actors...

I hope this clears that up.


Yuval.

[Emanuel]

Hi Yuval!

I received your PM, thank you. Don't worry! I already had with her (yes, Filmmaker'77 is a she when isn't a he -- as matter of fact, it's a production house user account, so there isn't the same guy or gal posting there) the same talk.

What I could understand what you said it is the REDCODE is cinematic. It has that feel different than the digital projection. Like it actually was film and not video.

Cheers :beer:
E.